HI6H COURT OF CHHj4Tn.S6ARH AT BIL4SPUR Criminot Rsvis'on No.52 <rf 2004 Ssnfosh Kuwar S/o Chhottoo ^ond aqed about 30 years, (now 36 years) R/o Naya Ama Pwa, Azad Chauk Dur-g, P.S, Mohon NQQQT' TdhsH and t?istt. Oura IC.G.': i.'^?/'flr//<? State of Chhattisoar'h fRevision undsr ssctio?1 397 ?*€QCJ with Ssctton 401 of l^s Cr.P.C. ^R: Mn^bl®Mr. T.P. Sh^ri^o.-J. Present: Ar'. N-S.Dhyr<2ndhnr cou^ssl for th^ csDDlicGnt. Ar.U.K..5.Chandes. Panei jawve." for the Stcte/non-aDDiicant. y cn ~£s"rei 1. 9v this rsv'sio^. the GDDlic<i?it hcs chdlisnoed t-he IsQ'slitv ctnd nt*ooristv of ths |udr?rA€r't dnt®d24.L2004 pcsssd by ths F?rst .AdditiQni3J .Ssss'ons .Judo^, DupQ. -Iyi C^liTdnd .4DD^Qi N]o.3-34/2003. <2ffirt?"in<^ th^ Jud^if<sf?t of co'^vjctio^ <$ o^der of sentence dot^d 18-7.2003 .DQSSSQ by l^s -Tudicirtl Mf2Q!st?*c2tg F^rst CI^ss. &UFQ_ :^ Cr'h^i^d Coss No. 1920/97, wherlffl s€.<'3-^-3"ed -JudiclQJ Mc^!st?tQts Flr3t Class conylctsd th$ cpQllcQnt undsr Sectio" 25 fl-8) fbl of the drms Act. 1959 fin short the Acf) and .S£..r?t€i'ic^dhh-^ to undsrQO r-i^orous 'iw;Dr''aso'nyn€'n't for OH€ vsn^ Gi^cl to D< •Q fi^^ of Rs.100/- i^i dsf^ult of D^iv^snt of finc to furtl4'<sr und®reio 5]^]")i^ ^n^isoji^^rst foi" two cfesv^. )T, 2. Ths. ludc'.y^.s'n't is in^uG^^d orl the ^rou^d th^t ths Courts b^low hnv& ^oHed to ^xerci^s ths iuri^diction ves'hsd o^ !t white cof'yictirio and ^sritB'nc^o th-g GDOgllcnt or^Q tJ^^rasbv co^^itfsd Ht^QCility.. :) -2.- 3. 9ri®ffGcts nBcessarv fop diSDossl of tilis rsyisiori s?te thQt on 26.11.9T Jst about 6 a.??i., l^.e appllGayit was holding button kiiif®ih a public p'sc^ ufithin the visibilitv of the wltnesses et Sikolabhatha Road. Sulochtma (Pyii'-l) has lodged the F-I.R. Knife 'A'CS se'zed from the present appSicant vide E-y-P/3. After coTipletion of investigat'on, chtt''ge sheet was fi'ed before the -Judicirtl MQQistrQts F'rstCJoss, DurQ. Th^ ijudlcisi! MQQistrrtte First C!ass after pr'ov'ding a" oppor'tunity of faearing to the parties, cc^victed ond sentenccc! the QQDiiccyit as c'forer^entioned which h<is bsen eiffirmed in the cppea!. 4. I have heard 'earned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment i}?iDu^nsd efid rscordlof the Courts b©low. 5. Learned counse! for the appticait submits that the prosecution has not Droyed Doss^ssion of button Rnife. thsrefors, conyiction <?f the QDDHcQnt is not sustai?inbl€ unde?" th®IGW. Lecimed counse! furthsr sybinits thQt ifi the- Dr>63snt crts€.th$ Dr'os^cution hos not <£XnrnIrl^d ii^yesti<i<xttn<3 officeEF who hos seized the alleaed knife from the nDDlicant- 6. On the other haid, learned State counsei supported the judgment impugned. 7. Tn order- to appreclotB the ar^ui^snts adycxncsd on bshaif of ths p<£rties, Z hciye exf3wi^$d th^ ^vide^ce Qdduced 01 behclf of the pr'ose.cutio?1. Subchana (PW-!), Dur'upati Bdi (PW-2) and Ramesh p'W-3) have deposed i?i thsir evJds?lc^ that st th®ti?Tte of iyicident, t-hs oppHcQnt ^QS holciirig knife, but they have not descriised the kind of kn'fe- S!ta>'am Sinhp (PW-4) wos "ot pr'esent at The time of incident. He we"t to "Hie po'ic^ stat'on for iodging the F-I-P-, but has o'eposed that knife was seized fr'og! the &rese?it rtDQliccmt at Sikoiobhato Road which is ne?t i" cQnf<?rll^itv wlth Ex-P/3. a!!eaed se.izur^ which shows that knife has been seized from ths 'y GQQlicQ.nt at Qc'lice station Mohoy1 NGQar'. Eve^ o'fher'wise this witness HrI3 "ot described the kind of knifa. The only possession of kn'fe is nort' 'r ^ 'l ( i- ^, ^s -3- punishoble u^dsr Ssctior> ^5 (1-B) (b) of the Act- Th^ possession of specific knife Including bu+to" knife is punishGble under Section 25 (1-B) fb'i of the, Act- 8. Zr' ths Drssent c^ssg. ths brosscution has not iacidyc%d <^y ^'.vidsncs to show thst the. cti3DiicQsfit WGS in D'QSSSSS'O^ of oi^y button Rtiifs Qf Rnif^ specified 'rn the Nlotificsition dsted 22.11.1974 undey S^ction 4 of ths Arws Act, therefoPe, in t'ne absence of any specifi.cat'on of k"ife, conviction of ths QDD£-HGnt is ?iot silisto.tir>Qbl& undsrl th®law. but both ths Courts bslow havs ©rredi?i corsvictii^Q Q?id S8nteyic|yiQ ths rSDDiicnflt. 9. Consgauently. the D©tit3o^ 1s £Houijsd. Corsvictiori ^ sentsncs of ths GppsllQnt u?ider S^ction 25 (1-B) (b) of the Act^ 1959 a.re hsrsby sd asids- The aDQlicant ss on b&il. hs ^e€:d ^ot surrsndsr bsfore the Court b€iOW. . ' .—— n i XP. Sharma |•.y\ \ Judge ..-•'" \ h r->,- ii