CF0000062136 />\^- ^^ i-y^-1 ^ .'^T^.'-*' •^c/^'- fk.AsfSS ^- IN THE HIGB COURI OF JUQIGA'HJRE AT JABALFtJR APB-ICANI APPELLMT NOS-APH.ICANI RESFONBEBT'i'S ••»•••* •ase.GRI.CASE HQ. /9^> CSiI.APPEAL N0. Cta.i'Ts /99 . { State af M.P.through P.S.Bakarkatta, Bistt.Rajaandgaoa, - VERSJS - S Birslngh S/o Gotl Sagas Baiga, aged abeut 65 years By Gaste "Baiga" ~'PaJV>'\~~ _ . B/o Saaunda^ P'.'S. Bakarkatta, Mstt, Rajnandgaoa (M.P). . •A I,IGATI0N EOR GRABT OP LEAVE TO APP.EAL @/S578(iiil CBI3S1INAL PBOCBWaE GOBE/APEEiM, U/S 578(lLGr.p«G*- ^ ~<s, sii3t& s lt3'!ii'i:fiy:'"?:^'"^—^^<^-i,&-., Mngls Bench : Honbia ttr. Justics Pr'itinter &iv/ak ir State of IViadhva Pradesh Versus Birsinqh, son of ^oti Baiaa Shri Vivek Sharma, Dy. &..A. for the State/appeilant, Shri F.S. Khare,counsei for the respondent. ER SECTION 378 (15 OF THE_C( ENAL PROCEDURE ^f.fS ^^ Present appeal arises out of the. impugned judgmei order datsd 14.1.1999 passed by Additional Chief J' Magistrate, Khciragrh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Crimina! No. 182/1997 acquitting the respondent of the offence Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. jdicid Case i inn^p 2. Brief facts ^ of the case are that on 8.2.1997 upon receiving secret irsformation that the respondent/accused is in possession of iilegal arms, the Search Party had raided the house of the respondent on.d hig threshing field and had found one muzzie iooded gun and two barrels of th.e same in his possession. F.I.R. (Ex.P-3) was registered ogcinst the responderrt on 8.2.1997 for the commissio" of offences under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined as many os 7 witnesses in supporr of its ca.se. Statement of the accused/resDondent was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which he -^- j !r:"^3t^y '^IEi^S^S denied the charge levelled against him and p'eaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the impugned judgment the court beiow has acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence under Sections 25 & 27 of The Arms Act. 5. Counse! for the State/appeiiant submits that on the basis of evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the court below ought to hove convicted the accused/respondent. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned Judgment, it has been argued by counse! for the respondent that the seizure has been made from the open piace and the seizure witness has notsupporf'ed the prosecution case. l-1e submits that Seized articles cannot be termed as arms within the definition of fire arms. 7. Heard counsei for the part'ies and perused the material available on record jncluding thejudgment impugned.. 8. From the eyidence of the witnesses, it is ciear that only one seizure witness Sabdas (PW-3) has been examined by the prosecution, but he has not supported the prosscution case. Further as per the report (Ex.P-2) given by the Examiner Rishidev Singh (PW-4) the gun was not ready for fire. It is aiso clear that the sanction was not in accordance with !aw. Al these aspects have been duiy considered by the court below while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. I find no reasonto interfere in the judgment of acquitta! particularly the view token by the court' below is one of the possibje view. It is a settled legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the t- "\ ^-'i. <:;:':-'l;'-s^n^:^'^IS*S^: n/- evidence !ed by t.he prosecution and the trid Court takir'g one view favourable to the accused, reversion of the findinqs of acquittai by the appellate Court taking the other possibie view into consideration, is not permissibie in law, this Court is of the view thot ths judgment impugned acquit+ing ths respondent/ accused of the offence under Sections 25 d 27 of the Arms Act, is Just and proper and does not cali for any interference by this Court. the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the co.se and the scme is di-smissed accordingly. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ;::;i!?aS':i: HS:k;4sS