IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.106 of 2011 RUDAL YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 24.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th January 2011 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 29 of 2010 whereby the appellate Court on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, refused to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court in G.R. case no. 1041 of 2009. A raid of Mona enterprise conducted by the police on 15.07.2009 found 07 pistols and 04 cartridges found wrapped in a ‘gamacha’. Petitioner was also apprehended therewith carrying one country made pistol. Accordingly investigation was taken up and after conclusion thereof charge sheet was submitted leading to his trial under Section 25(1-B)A and 26(i) of the Arms Act vide Tr. No. 1912 of 2010. 08 prosecution witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty under aforesaid sections of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 and ½ years with fine and R.I. for 02 years with fine respectively. Fine was imposed under the aforesaid two Penal Sections with default clauses. Aggrieved over the said order petitioner preferred appeal which was considered and dismissed. One of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner 2 is that there is contradiction in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. It is further contended that all the witnesses are police personnels. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that seizure was effected in presence of PW’s 5 and 6, who have not supported the prosecution case in toto. It is seen from the judgment of the appellate Court that PW’s 5 and 6 have not denied presence of their signatures on the seizure memos which have been marked as Exhibits 1/A and 1/B. It is further seen therefrom that the arms and ammunitions recovered from his possession was produced as material Exhibits 1 to 1/h. Reliance on the evidence of PWs most of them are police personnels can not ipso facto be said to be illegal in absence of any motive assigned against them for false implication. Learned appellate Court reappraised the evidence in the light of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter concurred with the findings of guilt recorded by the Court below. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court any perversity in such consideration of the matter meriting any interference. Application lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)