Rinku @ Rajesh Nauriya vs M.P.State
2023 Latest Caselaw 17452 MP

                                 1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                   ON THE 18 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2266 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
RINKU @ RAJESH NAURIYA S/O SHRI KAMAL
NAURIYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR R/O IN FRONT OF NEW COLLEGE BARMAN
KALA POLICE STATION SUATALA TEHSIL KARELI
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI GHANSHYAM PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

AND
M.P. STATE THROUGH S.H.O. POLICE STATION
SUATALA    DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR  (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)

      Heard on        : 16.10.2023
      Pronounced on : 18.10.2023

      This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                  ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, on 16.5.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.122/2023 whereby he allowed the appeal partially on quantum of sentence and confirmed the conviction of applicant under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 delivered in the judgment passed on 11.04.2023 by Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Narsinghpur, in RCT No.1308/2022. Under the modified sentence, the applicant is now directed to suffer a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default clause.

2 . The facts of the case as narrated in brief are that on 26.10.2022 information was received from informant that applicant was threatening people with an iron "baka" near Police Chowki Barman, Police Station Suatala, district Narsinghpur. Upon this information, Satarlal Saryam, Assistant Sub-Inspector, posted at Police Chowki Barman, proceeded for the place of incident along with co-staff and witnesses. As soon as they reached Gopalghat, they saw the applicant running away with an iron "baka" in his hand. He was nabbed and

asked for the licence to validate his possession of iron "baka" but he was not having any such document. The "baka" was seized in presence of witnesses and applicant was arrested. On returning the police station, Crime No.502/2022 w a s registered and the matter was investigated. After conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and once the trial concluded the applicant was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur, vide judgment dated 11.4.2023 under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appeal preferred against this judgment was allowed partially on the sentence of imprisonment as mentioned above.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that both the courts below failed to appreciate the entire evidence in correct perspective and reached to a wrong conclusion of convicting the applicant. No notification was produced in evidence to reach to the conclusion that the possession of applicant was illegal. The statements of prosecution witnesses were contradictory in nature and were not reliable. The "baka" which was allegedly

seized from the possession of applicant was not a sharp-edged weapon; independent witnesses failed to corroborate the prosecution story; the seizure officer was the Investigating Officer in this case, thus the investigation was not fair. Even the learned appellate court failed to appreciate these facts and erred gravely in convicting the applicant. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted.

4. State has opposed the present revision claiming that the impugned judgment suffers with no illegality or perversity, hence no interference is warranted.

5. The records of the courts below have been perused and arguments of both the parties have been heard.

6 . Ex.P-11 is the FIR, which was registered after completing the proceedings on spot regarding recovery of unlicenced arm and arrest of applicant. The facts mentioned in the FIR are based on the entries made in Rojnamcha Sanha written after returning from the spot, which is marked as Ex.P-12. According to it, an iron "baka" measuring 19 inches was recovered from the possession of applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the objection to the fact that the notification regarding the dimensions, etc. of a prohibited sharp-edged weapon was not produced in record of the trial court but this court is of the

opinion that not every notification need to be produced in evidence as Section 57 of Indian Evidence Act permits judicial notice of certain facts. In the present case, the court was dealing with the notification issued under Arms Act regarding the prohibited measurements of a sharp-edged weapon. This notification is readily available to every court of district, hence there was no

need to call upon the prosecution to produce the notification in evidence and if both the courts below have taken judicial notice of such a commonly available notification, no illegality has been committed by them. It is not the case of applicant that his conviction violates any terms of the notification. Hence, the ground taken about non-production of notification cannot be entertained at this stage.

8. The other grounds raised by the learned counsel for applicant are that the independent witnesses failed to support the prosecution story and the seizure officer was the Investigating Officer, hence the fairness of investigation was compromised. It may be mentioned here that the copy of notification was produced by Investigating Officer Sanjay Suryavanshi along with the charge- sheet.

9. These arguments have already been addressed by the learned appellate court in its judgment whereunder, referring to decisions of Apex Court, it has observed that testimony of a police officer is of no lesser sanctity than the testimony of independent witnesses and in the absence of any enmity between police witnesses and the accused, no inference can be drawn that police witnesses were unworthy of any credit. Therefore, in the light of this well-settled legal principle, this court is not inclined to accept the argument that testimonies of police officers were not reliable. Further, it has been wrongly argued that the seizure officer and the Investigating Officer in the case were one and the same person. The proceedings regarding seizure, etc. were conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Satarlal Saryam (P.W.4) while the investigation was conducted by Chowki Prabhari, Sub-Inspector Sanjay Suryavanshi (P.W.2).

10. An iron "baka" was seized from the possession of applicant in this case and the same was produced before the trial court as Article "A-1". No

substantial facts could be elicited during the cross-examination of seizure officer Satarlal Saryam, which would have the effect of challenging the seizure proceedings. The only fact which was emphasized was that in Rojnamcha Sanha entry i.e. Ex.P-9 reference of seizure of knife was made in column no.2 but in column no.4 of the same document, the seized article is referred to as "baka". Ex.P-9 is the information received from the informant, hence this contradiction can be easily explained. No contradiction could be highlighted in the Rojnamcha Sanha entry, which was recorded after returning from the spot i.e. Ex.P-12. It is specifically mentioned therein that an iron "baka" was seized from the applicant. Therefore, no substance is found in the argument regarding contradiction in description about the weapon seized.

11. Under the revisional jurisdiction, this court has very limited scope to interfere in the findings given by two courts below. Since no valid ground or argument is available in this criminal revision to interfere in the finding of conviction passed by the courts below, this criminal revision fails on that point and it is held that applicant was rightly convicted for the offence of Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act.

12. A prayer has been made in this criminal revision for consideration of sentence on lenient terms. The trial court had passed a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment which was reduced by the learned appellate court to two years rigorous imprisonment while the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- was imposed by both the courts below. Having considered the facts of the case and also in the absence of any witness, who was allegedly threatened by the applicant with his illegal possession, I deem it proper to reduce the term of imprisonment to the minimum prescribed punishment i.e. one year rigorous imprisonment while

the other part of sentence i.e. imposition of Rs.5,000/- as fine is not being interfered with.

13. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed partially on the point of sentence and applicant is sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence of Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act. In case of non-payment of fine, he shall further undergo the rigorous imprisonment of three months.

14. The applicant is in custody. The decision of trial court regarding disposal of seized property is confirmed.

Let a copy of this order be send to the courts below for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.10.19 14:21:11 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8