IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 392 of 2001 Old number Criminal Revision No. 1025 of 1996 Darshan Singh and others. …..…Revisionists. Versus State of U.P. …….Respondent. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. None appears for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent. Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case. Mr. S.S. Bhandari vehemently argued the case with the help of record made available by the State counsel. By way of present revision under section 397 and 401 revisionists are challenging the order dated 30.01.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Nainital, whereby learned ACJM has convicted the accused under sections 25, 27 and 35 Arms Act and judgment /order dated 23.07.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Nainital in criminal appeal no. 8 of 1993 thereby confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Brief fact of the present case is that SI – Visram Singh got information on 24.06.1988 that some people are 2 manufacturing illegal fire arms. On the same day SI – Visram Singh along with other police personnel raided the place and found Darshan Singh, Kakka Singh and Balwant Singh were manufacturing fire arms. Seeing the police party, Darshan Singh – revisionist no. 1, fled from the spot after jumping the wall, however, revisionist nos. 2 and 3 were caught on the spot. Fire arms and cartridges were recovered from the spot and were put in seal cover on the spot. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused / revisionists under sections 25, 27 and 35 of Arms Act. From the side of prosecution three witnesses were examined. Learned Trial Court, having considered the material available on record and especially the fact that accused were also challaned earlier under Arms Act, for manufacturing illegal Arms and were convicted, found the accused / revisionists guilty of the offence under sections 25, 27 and 35 Arms Act and were awarded 3 – 3 years RI under sections 25, 27 and 35 of Arms Act. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment /order of Trial Court, revisionists preferred criminal appeal no. 8 of 1993. Learned Appellate Court having perused the record confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court. While exercising revisional jurisdiction under sections 397 & 401 Code of Criminal of Procedure, judgment passed by court below can be interfered with only when this Court finds that court below has committed such illegality or procedural irregularity, which vitiates the proceedings or judgment is perverse or 3 court below has wrongly shut down the evidence or any peace of evidence escaped from the notice of the court. Having perused the record and having perused the judgment passed by courts below, I find no illegality or procedural error or any material evidence which was not noticed by the courts below. In view of above, no interference is called for. Revision is dismissed accordingly. (Alok Singh, J.) 11.12.2009 SKS