Gujarat High Court
Umar Ali Kumbhar vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1149/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1149 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✔
==========================================================
UMAR ALI KUMBHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.06.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Naliya, District Kachchh, in Criminal Case No.422 of 2013, whereby, the trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) 1 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, which is confirmed by learned 9th Additional District Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2021 vide order dated 28.06.2023.
2. Heard Mr.Kirtidev R. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant - accused and Mr. Rohan Raval, ld. APP for the respondent - State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1149/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined 20.11.2012, the complainant, while on duty along with his staff, intercepted the accused at Ghoda Circle, Naliya, who was found in possession of a country-made semi-automatic pistol along with two live cartridges without having any valid license for such possession. Consequently, an FIR came to be registered at Naliya Police Station, West Kachchh, for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Thereafter, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned JMFC Court, and upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate passed an order of conviction, which came to be confirmed by the learned District Court, Bhuj, as referred to in paragraph 1 of this order.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that neither any ballistic expert report was called for nor was the weapon examined scientifically, and merely on the basis of the statement of a police official, the conviction order has been recorded. It is further submitted that there were two panch witnesses, however, the first panch did not support the case of the prosecution, and it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to examine the second panch witness. No reason has been assigned for non- examination of the said independent witness. It is also contended that the raid had already been concluded prior to the drawing of the panchnama, and therefore, such panchnama cannot be relied upon as a corroborative piece of evidence. Moreover, neither any ballistic report has been produced nor were any fingerprints of the applicant found on the alleged weapon.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:07 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1149/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed the present revision application and contended that when the complainant police official was on patrolling duty, the applicant was found in a suspicious condition. Upon checking, one pistol and four live cartridges were recovered from his possession. A panchnama to that effect was prepared and statements of the panch witnesses were recorded. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly recorded the conviction. Hence, it is prayed that the present revision application be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that though there are concurrent findings recorded by the ld. Courts below, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 25(1)(a-B) of the Arms Act. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and produced only two documentary evidence i.e., FIR and panchnama. Except these, no other evidence has been brought on record. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of a firearm by any cogent evidence. No ballistic or scientific report has been produced to establish that the alleged weapon was a firearm within the meaning of the Act. In absence of such foundational evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was in possession of a firearm. Consequently, the applicability of Section 25(1)(a-B) of the Arms Act itself becomes doubtful. Furthermore, Section 2(e) of the Arms Act defines "ammunition." Not only that, but as per the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, no prosecution can be instituted against any person for an offence under Section 3 without previous Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1149/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined sanction of the District Magistrate.
7. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence and has failed to establish that the accused was in possession of a single- barrel country-made pistol without any valid authority or license. The issue of sanction goes to the root of the matter and is a substantial question of law. Therefore, interference by this Court is warranted, as the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. In absence of proof of possession and the foundational fact of existence of a firearm, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained.
8. For the foregoing reasons and observations, present revision application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.06.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Naliya, District Kachchh, in Criminal Case No.422 of 2013, as well as the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the the learned 9 th Additional District Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2021 confirming the same, are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Rule is made absolute. As the applicant accused is on bail, he need not surrender. The applicant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI I Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:07 IST 2026