Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16289
1 CRR-1375-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1375 of 2016
PRAKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the
petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 23.08.2016 in Criminal
Appeal No.798 of 2016 by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, whereby
the conviction of petitioner under Section 25 (1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and
sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- imposed by JMFC, Indore in
Criminal Case No.10460 of 2007 vide judgment dated 23.08.2016 in a case
arising out of Police-Station - Sanyogitaganj, Indore, has been affirmed.
02. This criminal revision has been preferred on the ground that S.K.
Sood (PW/5) has lodged the FIR and also conducted the investigation.
Investigation is vitiated. The witnesses Shailendra and Ramprasad have not
been examined. No independent witness was produced before the trial court.
The seizure memo Ex.P/1 is suspicious and burden has been shifted on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16289
2 CRR-1375-2016
accused/petitioner. Irfan Ali (PW/3) is not an expert and could not prove that
the seized article is fire-arm.
03. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
04. Counsel for the State has opposed the criminal revision.
05. The trial court has found the statement of Head Constable S.K.
Shukla (PW/5) posted on 15.09.2005 at Police-Station - Sanyogitaganj,
Indore (MP) reliable who deposed that on 15.09.2005, he apprehended the
petitioner/accused from Tempo Stand, Musakhedi, Indore, with fire-arm
(Article-1) and has seized the said Article. As per panchanama, Ex.-P/1 and
arrest memo Ex.P/2. The trial court has recorded the findings that nothing
has been brought on record that the witness has any reason to falsely
implicate the petitioner/accused. Perusal of paras 4 to 8 of cross-examination
of witnesses does not render the reasoning and the findings incorrect. The
trial court has rightly recorded the findings that witnesses Mahadev (PW/1)
and Dallulal Borasi (PW/2) have turned hostile and their testimony does not
affect the prosecution version.
06. In light of para 12 of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotics Branch of
Delhi) dated 31.08.2020, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 700, the
contention of the petitioner/accused that the S.K. Sood (PW/5) cannot be the
investigation officer does not survive.
07. The testimony of Senior Constable Irfan Ali (PW/3) and report
Ex.P/5 establish that Article-1 is a firearm of 12 bore and was in a working
condition. Mr. Netram Khandelwal (PW/4) is posted as Executive Clerk in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16289
3 CRR-1375-2016
the Office of District Magistrate, Indore, has proved the sanction for
prosecution under the provisions of Section 39 of Arms Act, 1959, as
Ex.P/6. Accordingly, the trial court as well as appellate court has committed
no error in convicting the present petitioner under Section 25(1-B)(a) of
Arms Act, 1959, and his conviction is affirmed.
08. Now we take into consideration the quantum of imprisonment.
Looking to the provisions of enhanced punishment through the Arms
(Amendment) Act, 2019 and under Section (1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, the
sentence imposed on the applicant/accused suffers no illegality. It does not
call for any interference for awarding lesser punishment. Consequently, this
criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Arun/-
