Jharkhand High Court
Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 592 of 2003
---------
Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Singh ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Mr.A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 04.04.2024 Pronounced on 27.09/2024
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 28.03.2003 passed by Sri Awadhesh Nandan , the
learned Sessions Judge-IV , Palamau at Daltonganj in case
Sessions Case No. 462 (A) of 1983 by which the appellant
namely Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Singh has been
convicted for the offence under section 25 (1B) (a) of Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three (03) .
However , the learned Court below has acquitted
the appellant for the offence under sections 399 , 402 of the
I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case, in brief is, that on
29.06.1982 at 19.00 hours the informant proceeded from the
police station and came to Deori Bazar and then he got secret
information that beside railway line towards the north of
Mahraon colony 7/8 criminals armed with weapons, were
concealing themselves in a bush and they were planning to
commit dacoity somewhere else. Having got this information
the police proceeded to nab the criminals and came to
Mahuraon colony, but there he got information that some
minutes earlier they had proceeded towards brewery shop
in Deori. At about 8 P.M. the police alongwith the informant
came to that brewery shop and surrounded it. Having seen the
police, the persons who were consuming liquor started
running away. The police caught two persons who were
trying to run away by scaling over the wall of the brewery
shop. However, other 5/6 criminals succeeded in running
away but one criminal who was caught by the police who
disclosed his name Brajesh Singh son of Kamta Singh and
the other arrested person disclosed his name Abhay Singh
son of Laxaman Singh both the village Kachhra, P.S.
Hussainabad, Palamau . In presence of two independent
witnesses namely Ramdhan Bhagat and Aabdul Ansari, these
two arrested person were searched by the police and in course
of the search of the body of Brajesh Singh, one loaded iron
pistol was recovered from the full-paint of criminal Brajesh
and four (04) live cartridges were recovered from his left
pocket and one fired cartridge was also recovered from his
possession.
It is also alleged that one loaded country made pistol
was also recovered from the left side of waist of criminal
Abhay Singh loaded with the live cartridge and two empty
cartridges were recovered from right pocket of his full-
paints , two blank cartridges were recovered from his left
pocket. Recovered arms and cartridges were seized by the
police and on the demand the accused could not produce
any license regarding those fire-arms and cartridges and they
also refused to disclose the names of their other associates,
who had succeeded in running away
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
appellant and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for
the appellant that the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not
sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated by the Police . It
is submitted that the learned Court below has committed
errors by convicting the appellant on mere surmises and
conjectures. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses
have given the contradicting statement . It is submitted that
the informant i.e. the I.O. of this case, has not been examined
and as such the prosecution had failed to prove the charge-
sheet against the appellant . It is submitted that the seizure
list witness namely Ramdhan Bhagat has not been examined
by the prosecution and another seizure list witness P.W. 5
Abdul Ansari has been declared hostile and it makes the
prosecution case doubtful. It is submitted that the P.W. 3 Md.
Ahmad Alam is not seizure list witness , he could not say the
name of accused person. It is submitted that P.W. 4 Shyam
Bihari Mahto has been tendered By the prosecution witness.
It is submitted that the P.W.-6 Paras Nath Pandey is a formal
witness who had proved the sanction orders . It is submitted
that the P.W. 7 Balmiki Kumar Singh, who was posted as
Incharge of Malkhana in Sadar Court Daltonganj, had
produced the material Exhibits and at the instance of
prosecution , however during his cross-examintion he
admitted that the paper pasted in the pistol cannot be read and
thus seized materials have not been validly proved by the
prosecution. It is submitted that P.W. the 8, O. Hemrom who
was Sergeant Major and had proved the Test Report marked
as Exhibit -4 , however the evidence of P.W. 8 O. Hemrom
is not reliable . It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has not
been properly proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that
in view of the above the appellant may be acquitted .In
support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon the judgment reported in following
cases:-
(i) Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR
1995 SCC 2339 and
(ii) Nisar Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in
2019 Supreme ( JHK) 296 .
It is submitted that in view of above , the appellant
may be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the state
has submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper
and no interference is required from this Court It is submitted
that the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is speaking one and the trial Court had given cogent
reasons for convicting and sentencing the appellant . It is
submitted that even the informant and I.O. of this case had not
been examined still , prosecution has successfully proved this
case . It is submitted that this is the case of recovery of fire
arms from two (02) persons including the appellant. It is
submitted that one loaded country made pistol with live
cartridge and two empty cartridge were recovered from the
right pocket of the full paints and two (02) live cartridge were
recovered from the left pocket of the appellant Abhay Kumar
Singh @ Abhay Singh whereas one another loaded pistol was
recovered from the possession of accused Brajesh Singh and
four (04) live cartridges and four (04 ) empty cartridge and
one fire cartridge were also recovered from the possession of
said accused person Brajesh Singh and recovery of fire arms
two (02) pistol and fire arms have been supported by the
seizure witness P.W. 3 Md. Alam . It is submitted that apart
from P.W. 3, P.W. 1 Jagdish Sharma, P.W. 2 Biswa Oraon have
also supported the prosecution case and recovery of pistol. It
is submitted that P.W. 5 Abdul Ansari has been declared hostile
but he was present at the place of occurrence. It is submitted
that P.W. 6 Paras Nath Pandey had proved the sanction order
against the appellant. It is submitted that the P.W. 7 had
produced seized material from the appellant before the learned
Trial Court and had proved the material Exhibits marked as
M.E. -I and M.E. -II, whereas six (06) live cartridges were
marked and proved as M.E. III to M.E. III/5 respectively. He
also proved the Material Exhibit M.E. - IV and M.E. IV/1 and
six (06) empty cartridges marked as M.E. V to M.E. V/5
respectively. But the prosecution had successfully proved
charge-sheet against the appellant . It is submitted that P.W. 8
O. Hemrom is Sergeant Major and who had proved the Test
Report marked as Exhbit-4 and hence this Criminal Appeal
may be dismissed as there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment and sentence.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and
considered the submission of both the sides.
7. It transpires that while the informant Kishori Ram ,
Officer -Incharge of Hussainabad Police Station alongwith
other Police Officer was on during patrolling, then he
received the information of some miscreants and had
apprehended the appellants Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay
Singh and one co-accused Brajesh Singh and had recovered
one loaded country made pistol each from both the persons
and he also claimed to have recovered two (02) live cartridge
and two (02) empty cartridges from the possession of the
appellant and he also claimed to have recovered four (04) live
cartridge , four (04) empty cartridges and one miss fire
cartridge respectively from the possession of co-accused.
8. It transpires that the police after making
investigation, had submitted charge-sheet against the
appellant and one Brajesh Singh for the offences under
sections 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and under section 25 (1-B)
(a) of the Arms Act against the appellant, Co-accused Barjesh
Singh and 5-6 unknown persons .
Thereafter the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate had taken cognizance against the appellant and the
Co-accused Barjesh Singh under sections under sections 399
and 402 of the I.P.C. and under section 25 (1-B) (a) of the
Arms Act .
9. After supply of police papers to the appellant,
charges were framed against the appellants Abhay Kumar
Singh @ Abhay Singh and one co-accused Brajesh Singh
under sections 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and under section 25
(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act on 26.09.1987 by Sri Jeewan Tigga ,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj
and to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .
10. During pendency of trial of this case the Co-
accused Brajesh Singh was separated as he was found absent
dates and raise S.T. No. 462 (A) of 1983 was opened on
04.01.2001 and then he surrendered on 19.09.2002 . Although
on record the S.T. No. 462 (A) of 1983 was disposed of but
result had not been mentioned by the learned Court below.
11. The prosecution in support of its case got
examined eight (8 witnesses) who are as follows:-
(i) P.W. 1 is Jagdish Sharma,
(ii) P.W. 2 is Biswa Oraon,
(iii) P.W. 3 is Md. Ahmad Alam,
(iv) P.W. 4 is Shyam Bihari Mahto ,
(v) P.W. 5 is Abdul Ansari,
(vi) P.W. 6 is Paras Nath Pandey,
(vii) P.W. 7 is Balmiki Kumar Singh and
(viii) P.W. 8 is O. Hembrom
12. The prosecution in support of its case got marked
the following as the Exhibits which are as follows:-
(i) Exhibit 1 is Signature of Abdul Ansari ,
(ii) Exhibit -2 is Sanction Order / Memo No. 407 dated
01.02.1983,
(iii) Exhibit -3 is Sanction Order / Memo No. 406 dated
01.02.11983 ,
(iv) Exhibit -4 is Requision of C.M. Lagori and
(v) Exhibit 4/1 is Enquiry report -.
13. Thereafter the appellant was examined under
section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.02.2003 by the learned Court below
and he had denied the circumstances put forth before him.
14. Neither any defence witness was examined nor
any documents was marked as the Exhibit on behalf of the
defence i.e. the appellant.
15. Thereafter the learned Court below had
convicted the appellant for the offence under section 25 (1-
B) (a) of the Arms Act and had sentenced him to undergo
R.I. for three (03) years and as such this Court has to consider
whether the prosecution has been able to prove this case or
not ?
16. It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged on
29.06.1982 by the Officer-Incharge , however the F.I.R. was
seen by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 01.07.1982
i.e. the delay of two days and no explanation has been
furnished by the prosecution.
17. So far as, Oral evidence is concerned, it would
appear from the impugned judgment that the informant and the
I.O. namely Kishore Ram of this case who is the one and same
person had not been examined by the prosecution and in this
back ground the evidence of other witnesses have to be
appreciated.
18. P.W. 1 Jagdish Sharma, who was Head
Constable in Deori, stated during his evidence that under the
instruction of Office In-charge Kishori Ram, he alongwith
Officer-In-charge were proceeding for the raid at around
7:30 pm in the evening and around ten (10) persons had
accompanied there and they learnt 7-8 persons had gone from
there and then they arrived near Deori Gali at around 8:00 pm,
where they had seen some persons smoking cigarate and
taking wine at the "Bhathi" and having seen the police party ,
the said accused persons started fleeing away , however two
(02) persons were apprehended and the Officer -In-charge had
recovered one pistol each from them and some live cartridge
and some blank cartridge were recovered from them and two
(02) persons were accused and they had disclosed there name
as the appellant Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Singh and one
co-accused Brajesh Singh.
During cross-examination he stated that the police
had conducted search of the accused persons in his presence ,
however they had not given their search before the
independence persons . He is not aware of conducting raid but
he had gone there in the instruction of Officer-In-charge and
had gone by Jeep. He denied the suggestion for falsely
implicating the appellant .
Therefore P.W. 1 claimed to identify the accused
with fire arm, however the evidence of P.W. 1 is not proved by
the Informant as he had not been examined.
19. P.W. 2 is Biswa Oraon one another police
constable and stated that he alongwith Office -In-charge and
another persons and they had gone in raid and they had
apprehended two (02) persons and one small pistol and live
cartridges were recovered from them . However , he could not
remember the name then the prosecution pointed out towards
the appellant for identification , they could not identify the
appellant and co-accused .
During -cross examination he failed to say the
number of blank cartridge . He also stated that they had gone
for raid in Basti where 08-10 people were taking wine .
20. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 2 , it is evident
that he had not identified the appellant in Court and he
merely stated that two (02) persons were apprehended and
thus the evidence of P.W. 2 is contradicted from the evidence
of P.W. 1 also and he had not identified the appellant and
hence the evidence does not support the prosecution case and
the evidence of P.W. 2 is not reliable .
21. P.W. 3 Md. Alam is a seizure list witness and
stated during his evidence that he alongwith other police had
gone for conducting raid at Mahuraon Ghati /Bati and where
two (02) persons were apprehended and two (02) pistol , Five
(05) live cartridges and four (04) blank cartridges were
recovered but he could not identify the appellant in the Court.
During cross-examination he stated that the police
had not recorded his statement , however, one live cartridge,
two (02) blank cartridges were recovered and one fire arms
was recovered from his possession .
22. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 3, it
is evident that the P.W. 3 had failed to describe the place of
occurrence because as per P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 the place of
occurrence is at Bhatta whereas the evidence of the P.W. 3 that
reveals place of occurrence is at Mahuraon Ghati and the
evidence of P.W. 3 is also not reliable in absence of the
Informant and I.O. of this case. Even P.W. 3 has not identified
the appellant in the Court and hence P.W. 3 has not support the
prosecution case as he had not identified the appellant.
23. P.W. 4 is Shyam Bihari Mahto who has been
tendered by the prosecution , thus the evidence of P.W. 4 is
not reliable .
24. P.W. 5 is Abdul Ansari who stated during his
evidence that the Office -In-charge had not prepared any
seizure list during his presence after searching the appellant
and Co-accused.
This P.W. 5 has been declared hostile by the
prosecution and during cross-examination he stated that the
police had not recovered pistol and cartridge during his
presence and the police had taken signature on blank paper .
Thus , the evidence of P.W. 5 is not reliable as he has not
supported the prosecution case .
25. P.W. 6 is Paras Nath Pandey and who is Assistant
in Law Section had proved the sanction order of District
Magistrate S.K. Chakroverty marked as Exhibit 2 and
Exhibit- -3 respectively.
Thus, P.W. 6 is a formal witness.
26. P.W. 7 is Balmiki Kumar Singh who is In-charge
of Malkhana In Sadar Court and he had proved the entry of
Material Exhibit marked as Exhibit -IV. He had further proved
two (02) country made pistol marked as Material Exhibit-I
and Material Exhibit-II respectively and also proved six (06)
live cartridges marked as Material Exhibit - III, Exhibit -III/5
respectively . He further proved two (02) blank cartridges
marked as Material Exhibit -IV and IV/1 and also proved six
(06 ) blank top of cartridge marked as Material Exhibit V to
V/5 respectively .
During cross-examination he admitted at para 5
and para 7 that he had not put his signature though he had
made entry for the materials marked as Exhibit -IV and he had
not filled of signature the informant. He also stated that the
paper pasted on the pistol was written and words mentioned
there are not eligible and he could not say as to whether case
number is mentioned or not.
He also admitted in para 6 and 8 that said paper i.e.
there is no special sign and also pasted on the blank paper on
the blank cartridge and empty cartridge which was not
eligible.
Thus, the evidence of P.W. 7 reveals that proper
custody of Material Exhibit has not been proved by the
prosecution and no special sing was shown for identification
of above Material Exhibits . Thus P.W. 8 is not reliable
witness.
27. P.W. 8 is O. Hemrom, who is Sergeant Major and
stated during his evidence that the Officer-In-charge Sri C.M.
Lagori had proved the Test Paper Material Exhibit and he had
sent the requisition of C.M. Lagori marked as material Exhibit
-4 . He had further proved his Test Report on the requisition
marked as Material Exhibit- 4/1.
However, he could not say as to whether the written
report was in signature of the Officer In-charge Kishori Ram
or not.
During cross-examination he admitted that the seized
Material Exhibits had not been produced before him in the
learned Court below and requisition of C.M. Lahori dated
10.12.1982 and his report is also on 10.12.1982. He admitted
that Hussainabad Police Station is situated approx. 78 km from
Daltonganj .
Thus the scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 8, it is
evident that he had proved the Test Report marked as Exhibit
4/1, and he is a formal witness.
28. It further transpires that on the same day he
conducted the Test of the material and claimed that
10.12.1982. However he failed to say that the Material Exhibit
were found in seal condition or not and therefor tampering
of material is also not ruled out .
Thus, the evidence of P.W. 8 also not reliable .
29. Although the defence had not taken the plea of not
sealing of Material Exhibits i.e. two (02) pistol , four (04)
live cartridges and six (06) blank cartridge and four (04)
empty cartridges but the requisition send by C.M. Lagori
marked as Material Exhibit -4 doesn't show that it was sealed
or not ?
Even the Test Report marked as Material Exhibit
4/1 on the said requisition on 10.12.1998 does not show that
it was found in the sealed condition by the Sergent Major and
thus the evidence of P.W. 8 is not reliable.
30. It is evident that the Informant and I.O. are one
and the same person.
31. It has been held in the case of Megha Singh Vs.
State of Haryana reported in 1995 AIR (SCC ) 2339 para 4
as follows:-
"para 4- 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that
there is discrepancy in the depositions of PWs 2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent
corroboration such discrepancy does not inspire confidence about the reliability of the
prosecution case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. PW 3, Siri Chand,
Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the
cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information
report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded
with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in
the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161
CrPC. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any
occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.
32. It has been held in the case of Nisar Ansari Vs.
The State of Jharkhand reported in 2019 Supreme (JHK)
296 at para 11 and 13 as follows:-
" Para 11. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held
that the non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity as in such a
situation the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. "
"Para 13. In the present case also, P.W.1 stated that the seized pistol was not sealed.
The seizure list witnesses were also not examined. The independent witnesses were
declared hostile. Though the report of the Sergeant Major was not proved by
producing him as a witness. The report of the Sergeant Major was not marked as
an exhibit, yet the learned Courts below accepted the said report merely on the
statement of P.W.7. Though P.Ws. 5, 6 & 8 claimed that they were the members of
the raiding party, yet they specifically stated that they did not make their signatures
on the seizure list or on any other document relating to the raid, which creates
reasonable doubt in the factum of seizure. Thus, there is serious infirmity in the
case of the prosecution for which the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit
of doubt. "
33. It has been held in the case of Amarjit Singh vrs.
State of Punjab reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 217 and
paragraph No.7 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"Para.7: The entire prosecution case, thus, is clouded
with number of infirmities which compel this Court not to
accept such an unworthy evidence. These infirmities have
been brushed aside by the Designated Court by observing
that since the model number of the revolver was noted
down, the non-sealing of the revolver or the handing over
of the same to some other police official or a private
person, who has not been examined are of no
consequence. We are unable to agree and subscribe to this
view in a case of this nature. The non-sealing of the
revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the
possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled
out. The report of PW4 that the weapon is capable of
being fired is insignificant since it cannot be said with
certainty as to what was the condition of the weapon at
the time of the recovery, apart from the evidence of PW4
that he did not test-fire the revolver.
34. It has been held in the case of Sahib Singh vrs. State
of Punjab reported in 1996 (11) SCC 685 and paragraph No.6
of the said judgment is as follows:-
"Para.6:- Having gone through the record we find much
substance in each of the above contentions. Before
conducting a search the police officer concerned is
required to call upon some independent and respectable
people of the locality to witness the search. In a given case
it may so happen that no such person is available or, even
if available, is 6 not willing to be a party to such search.
It may also be that after joining the search, such persons
later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the
evidence of the police officers who conducted the search
cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no
independent and respectable witness was examined to
prove the search but if it is found - as in the present case
- that no attempt was made even by the police officer
concerned to join with him some persons of the locality
who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it
would affect the weight of evidence of the police officer,
though not its admissibility. We next find from the record
that the arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from
the appellant and seized were not packeted and sealed. In
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab this Court has observed
that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious
infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the
weapon cannot be ruled out. From the record we further
find that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the
revolver was after its seizure by PW 3 till it was sent to
the Arms Expert for testing through Head Constable Baita
Singh. This missing link also weakens the prosecution
case. For all these infirmities we are of the view, that the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
35. It has been held in the case of Salim Akhtar @ Mota
versus State of U.P reported in (2003) 5 SCC 499 and
paragraph No.9 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"Para.9:- The evidence on record clearly shows that the
pistol alleged to have been recovered from the polythene
bag which was allegedly taken out from the mud by the
appellant was not sealed on the spot. PW 1 in his cross-
examination has stated that the pistol was not sealed as it
was factory-made and in the recovery memo its "number"
or "make" was not written as the same was not clear and
legible. However, the cartridges and bomb and RDX were
sealed. Similar statement has been given by PW 2 S.N.
Tripathi and PW 4 S.P. Sharma that at the time when the
pistol was deposited in the malkhana, the same had not
been sealed. In the FIR, no details have been given to fix
the identity of the pistol. PW 4 has stated that the same was
of Chinese-make while PW 6 Tej Pal Sharma, Head
Constable of PS Lisari Gate, where the recovered articles
were deposited, has stated that the same was of English-
make. In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Sahib Singh
v. State of Punjab it has been held that the possibility of
tampering cannot be ruled out where the recovered articles
were not sealed on the spot. We are little surprised that
though the 7 cartridges were sealed but the most important
object, namely, the pistol was not sealed on the spot and
the same was deposited as it is in the police station and,
thereafter at the malkhana. In our opinion the fact that the
pistol alleged to have been recovered at the pointing out of
the appellant was not sealed on the spot coupled with the
fact that neither its number nor its make etc. to fix its
identity was mentioned in the recovery memo or in the FIR,
raises considerable doubt regarding the factum of
recovery."
36. Therefore, it is evident that there is several
inconsistencies and several contradiction in the prosecution
case .
37. It is further evident that the informant as well as
I.O. of this case , have not been examined and which is fatal
for the prosecution case .
38. It is evident that one another seizure list namely
Md. Alam had not been examined by the prosecution whereas
the another seizure list witness P.W. 5 Abdul Ansari has been
declared hostile .
39. Even the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is
contradictory the evidence of P.W. 5 and thus there is
informality of prosecution case.
40. It is submitted that the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for
around 19.09.2002 to 26.11.2002 and also custody from
29.06.1982 till some period.
As the learned Trial Court had not send the order-
sheet for the learned Court below as such the total period of
custody of the appellant could not been ascertained . The
learned Court below must be careful in future for sending the
record.
41. In view of discussion made above , and in the
light of the judgment of Supreme Court and on the fact and
in the circumstances mentioned above , the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2003 in S.T. No. 462 (A)
of 1993 passed by Sri Awadhesh Nanda, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj are set-aside and the
appellant namely Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Singh is
acquitted for the offence under section 25(1B) (a) of the
Arms Act and the appellant namely, Abhay Kumar Singh @
Abhay Singh is also discharged from the liability of his bail
bonds.
42. Thus, the Criminal Appeal ( S.J.) No. 592 of
2003 is allowed and stand disposed of.
43. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the
learned court below at once.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
