Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32842
1 CRR-2500-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2500 of 2025
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajkamal Chaturvedi - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion
hearing stage.
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 16.05.2025 passed by Sessions Judge,
Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.14/2025 arising out of judgment dated
16.12.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District- Chhatarpur in
Criminal Case No.RCT No.169/2019 whereby the applicant has been
convicted under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the prosecution has
not examined any independent witness whereas the Investigating Officer has
admitted that when the applicant was apprehended, private persons were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32842
2 CRR-2500-2025
living as it was a residential area but the independent witnesses were not
made the witness of seizure memo and arrest memo. The witness
Kashiprasad Pateria (PW-1) and Ramniwas Sahu (PW-2) were the Police
witnesses and are working with the Investigating Officer as he has admitted
in para-4 of his cross examination. There is over writing at the time of
seizure memo (Ex.P-1). Thus, the trial Court committed error by convicting
the applicant and the same error has been repeated by the Appellate Court,
hence, the revision be allowed and the applicant be acquitted.
3. Learned counsel for State has supported the judgment of trial Court
as well as Appellate Court and has submitted that no interference is required
in the case, hence, the revision be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Witness Deepak Yadav (PW-3) in the clear terms has stated that on
27.05.2019 he was posted as Sub Inspector Police Station - Bamitha. He was
in the search of the warranties, at that time in Village Bhura, he received a
secret information on his mobile that a person having a fire arm, is walking
near Ram Janki Temple, when he reached there and that person started
running, he was apprehended and on search, in the left side of waist, a pistol
was found and in the magazine of the pistol, there was live cartridge. The fire
arm was seized and the applicant was arrested.
6. In the cross examination, he has stated the fact that he had not made
the witness of search and seizure to independent witnesses and had not
submitted the copy of the Malkhana Register and the General Diary of the
Police Station. Nothing has been asked and no suggestion has been given that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32842
3 CRR-2500-2025
the this witness was having any enmity or prejudice to this applicant and by
that this witness has falsely implicated the applicant.
7. Witness Kashiprasad Pateria (PW-1) who is the member of Home
guard has also supported the same fact. Witness Ramniwas Sahu (PW-2), the
Police Constable who accompanied Deepak Yadav (PW-3), has also
supported the same fact.
8. The fire arm was produced before the trial Court and it was in the
working condition that was proved by Sheikh Mukhtar (PW-4) by exhibiting
his report (Ex.P-5). Nothing has been brought in the statement of these
witnesses. S.B. Nigam (PW-5) has proved the sanction of the Collector. No
material contradiction and omission is found in the statement of prosecution
witnesses, hence, the conviction of applicant under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the
Arms Act is maintained, hence, the revision petition being devoid of merits is
dismissed.
9. Case property be disposed of as per the order of trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.
11. With the copy of this order, record of trial Court as well as
Appellate Court be returned back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
DPS
