IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1538 of 2009 RAMCHANDRA KAHAR,son of late Mohan Ram,r/o village-Itwan,P.S.-Pauthu,District- Aurangabad. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 06/ 04-01-2010 None appears for the parties. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 15-06-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Aurangabad in Cr.Appeal No.32 of 2002/35 of 2009, by which he has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order dated 12- 04-2002 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in G.R.Case No.96/1996, Trial No.43/2002, whereby he had convicted the petitioner and awarded him sentence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 26 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month’s rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution case in brief is that while informant along with other police officials was on night patrolling and reached at Itawan turning received confidential informant that some outsider criminal had come at the house of Ram Chandra Kahar (petitioner). On such information petitioner’s house was raided at about 3 O’Clock. In that course door of the petitioner’s house got openened in presence of villagers including Dhananjay Sharma and Laxaman Ram seizure list witnesses and search was made. A gun covered with cloth was found 2 from a hole of Palm tree Dharan. Seizure list was prepared after seizing the gun on which both the named witnesses put their L.T.I., even in presence of the petitioner. Petitioner was asked to produce some document concerning the gun but he failed to show any document. Accordingly he was arrested. After full-fledged trial petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act that is confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad. Legality, correctness and propriety have been questioned through filing this revision. Illegality has been pointed out that there was no recovery from personal or conscious possession of the petitioner but from joint house of the petitioner with his brother and other family members. Seizure list witness Dhananjay Sharma, Investigating Officer and the informant have not been examined. Further another seizure list witness namely P.W.7 has not supported the recovery of gun. After going through the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad, it is clear enough that all the points were raised before him also and that is properly replied. For non- examination of the informant it is rightly observed that informant was one of the raiding party police officials of which P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 were also members and they had supported the prosecution case about recovery of the gun from the petitioner’s house they are of equal importance. As about being the house joint that has also rightly been replied that petitioner was only present there. Really, information was 3 there to remaining of outsider criminals to petitioner’s house only. In the case non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal as petitioner is not prejudiced by his non-examination. Witnesses, the members of raiding party are there to state the recovery from palm tree Dharan, which is the prosecution case found by the Investigating Officer also. It could prejudice if evidence collected by the Investigation Officer was otherwise. After further scrutinizing I find some wrong committed by both the courts though not raised i.e. conviction under Section 25(1- B) and 26 of the Arms Act for a single raid of a country made gun that can be minimized by affirming the conviction for one year for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act only exonerating the petitioner from fine. With such modification conviction is affirmed and accordingly sentence is minimized to one year for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act only exonerating the petitioner from fine. This revision application is thus dismissed. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )