IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.554 of 2010 MD. AFTAB ALAM S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFOR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04. 19.07.2010 Heard both sides. This application in revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge Madhubani in Cr. Appeal no. 40 of 2008 which was disposed of along with Cr. Appeal no. 39 of 2008. On 21.12.2004 at about 6.00 p.m. the informant in course of checking of vehicles and fire arms at Shankar Chowk, Khutauna Bazar intercepted one motorcycle. The driver and the pillion rider made an attempt to flee away when they were chased and apprehended. A search was carried out. In course whereof one country made pistol and live cartridges of .315 bore were recovered. On conclusion of investigation the petitioner along with co-accused Abid Hussain was put on trial. At the trial altogether 07 prosecution witnesses were examined. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court found and held that charge(s) under Sections 25(1-B) a/35 and 26(1)35 of the Arms Act were proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years under both the heads with fine having default clause(s). Both co- convicts preferred aforesaid two appeals which was/were considered and disposed of by learned lower appellate Court. On a reappraisal of the evidence on record it was found that there was/were deficient materials on record in so far as the recovery 2 from possession of co-accused Abid Hussain was concerned. Accordingly he was acquitted of the charge(s). So far as petitioner is concerned, the appeal was dismissed. Learned lower appellate Court while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence whereby petitioner was directed to undergo R.I. for 01 year under both the counts with fine having default clause(s) While assailing the sustainability of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the point of recovery from the possession of the petitioner evidence is specific against one of the co-convicts, namely, Abid Hussain, who has already been acquitted of the charge(s) and as such lower appellate Court ought to have acquitted him of the charge(s). Such submission has been made with reference to the deposition of informant (PW-5). Learned counsel for the State read out the evidence of the informant. It is stated that in the examination-in-chief itself the informant had in a very clear and unambiguous manner stated that recovery of the fire arm was made from the possession of the petitioner. In fact the submissions which have been raised here in support of the application were raised in the Court below which have been adequately dealt with and rejected. This Court does not find any patent illegality and/or infirmity in the judgment impugned meriting interference It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)