Jharkhand High Court
Pintu Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 616 of 2016
Pintu Verma ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : M/s. S. K. Dubey, A.P.P.
-----
04/02.02.2023 Heard Mr. S. S. Choudhary learned lawyer
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Dubey, learned A.P.P.
This Criminal Revision Application is being
disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
The petitioner has preferred this application against
the judgment dated 16.04.2016, passed by Sri Shiv Pal Singh,
learned A.J.C.-IV, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2016, whereby
and wherein the learned A.J.C.-IV, Ranchi upheld the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri Sanjit Kumar
Chandra, learned J.M.F.C., Ranchi in connection with Kotwali
Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 767/2007, corresponding to G.R. No.
3920/2007, holding the appellant Pintu Verma, guilty for the
offence under section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and thereby
sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
for the offence under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 26 of
the Arms Act alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of
payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently. The period already undergone by the petitioner
during the trial was ordered to be set off.
The petitioner is alleged to have been apprehended
by the Kotwali Sukhdeonagar, police on 20.10.2007 at about 03:15
P.M., at a distance of about 250 meters from Kotwali Sukhdeonagar
police station. On search, one country made pistol of six rounds was
recovered from his possession. During the trial, prosecution has
adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The informant
Mohan Prasad Singh (P.W.3) and members of patrolling party, who
were examined as witnesses have supported the fact that the
petitioner was apprehended as alleged and a country made pistol of
six rounds was recovered from his possession.
Mohan Prasad Singh (P.W.3), has proved the seizure
list relating to the recovery of the seized firearm, which is Ext.- 2.
Sushma Kumari (P.W.5), is the Investigating Officer
of this case, she has proved the sanction order for the prosecution of
the petitioner issued on 29.11.2007, by the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi.
Asim Kumar Das Gupta (P.W.1), is the ballistic
expert who had examined the recovered firearm. He has stated that
the recovered firearm was in working condition. He has proved his
report which is Ext.- 1.
From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
evident that the members of the raiding party have corroborated
each other on the point that the country made pistol of six rounds
was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Prosecution has
also proved the seizure list to corroborate the factum of recovery.
Prosecution has also brought on record the report of the ballistic
expert that the seized firearm was in working condition. Prosecution
has further proved the sanction order for prosecution of the
petitioner under section 25(1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act as
required under section 39 of the Arms Act.
There is concurrent finding of both the trial court as
well as by the learned Appellate Court regarding the guilt of the
petitioner. I do not find any error in the judgment of the learned trial
court and also in the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
It was submitted by learned lawyer appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner has faced trial for about
sixteen years and he has not earlier been convicted in any other
case. Considering this fact, the sentence of three years of rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under section 25(1-B)a and also under
section 26 of the Arms Act is reduced to a period of two years under
both the sections. The period already undergone in custody shall be
set off.
This Criminal Revision Application is partly
allowed with the aforesaid modification.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
