Dev Sagar Dixit vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 399 Jhar

                                  -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.247 of 2021
                           With
                   I.A. No.5160 of 2021

    Dev Sagar Dixit                             ......       Petitioner
                              Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                      .....    Opp. Party
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

    For the Petitioner        : Mr. S. T. Sajid, Advocate
    For the State             : Mr. Ashok Singh, A.P.P
                              ---------
         The matter was taken up through Video

Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---------

               th
08/Dated: 10        February, 2022

1. The present revision application has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.02.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2020 by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, whereby the order of sentence dated 19.05.2020, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Garhwa, in G.R. Case No.1318 of 2011, has been modified and the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the each count along with the default clause.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.P.P. From perusal of the record, it appears that the seizure list suggests that one country made pistol with one live cartridge were recovered while the material produced by P.W.-10 suggests that one country made pistol with two live cartridges were produced in the court. Thus, there is grave discrepancy in the seizure list as well as the production of material evidence in the court. No independent witness has been examined. Thus, the very seizure itself is doubtful. Seizure of the pistol and cartridge from this revisionist have not been evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt. The court below has failed to take into consideration that this vital discrepancy disclose the route of the case.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner

deserves to be acquitted from the charges for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act, accordingly he is acquitted from the aforesaid charges and the judgment dated 03.02.2021 is, hereby, set aside.

3. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

4. Office shall prepare the Release Order of the petitioner and send it to the court concerned.

5. The judgment in separate sheet shall follow shortly.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-