IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1408 of 2010 1. MANI KANT ROY SON OF RAM CHARAN ROY 2. BATTAN YADAV SON OF DUKHAN YADAV, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LOUNI, P.S.- BARAHAT, DISTRICT- BANKA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Mritinjay Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay.APP ----------- 2 23.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C.- IV Banka in Cr. Appeal no. 81 of 2008 whereby their conviction recorded under Section 25(1-b)a , 26 and 35 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine having default clause have been affirmed. As per the prosecution case, petitioner no. 1 was found possessed of one loaded musket whereas petitioner no. 2 was found in possession of one country made loaded gun. At the trial, 10 witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case. Although, the seizure list (Ext.2) witnesses have been declared hostile but both of them have admitted their L.T.I./signature appearing on seizure list (Ext.2). Learned trial Court appraised the evidence on record and found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned lower appellate Court re-scanned the evidence in the light of submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/appellants and came to the conclusion that the finding 2 of guilt recorded by learned trial Court was based on correct appraisal of the evidence on record. Consequently the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the witnesses are at variance so far as recovery of ammunitions/cartridges are concerned. It is further stated that the seizure witnesses did not state before the Court that the recoveries were made in their presence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory and In that view of the matter, this Court may not interfere in the order impugned recorded by the two courts below. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. In my view, concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory meriting any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )