IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.684 of 2009 Lala Gope @ Lala Yadav S/o Late Badhan Gope, resident of village- Krishnai Bigha, P.S.-Chhabilapur, District- Nalanda. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rudal Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- 5/ 16.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 2006. By the said judgment the learned lower appellate court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Petitioner was tried for an allegation that he was possessed of illegal weapon and cartridges, which was/were recovered from his house. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses besides bringing on record the relevant documents as Exhibits. Learned trial court under judgment and order dated 27.02.2006 found and held the petitioner guilty under Sections 25 (i-b)a of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year besides imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. He was also found and held guilty under Section 26(i) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. Petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, preferred appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 23 of - 2 - 2006, which was considered by the learned lower appellate court. All the witnesses examined at the trial were re-evaluated and re-appraised by the learned lower appellate court. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing both the sides the learned lower appellate court in paragraph 20 of the judgment held as under: “So far the charges are concerned, I find that P.W.1 has deposed in his examination in chief that Lala Yadav, convict appellant who was possessing the country made gun and cartridges and in course of examination it has not been falsified and nothing has come in his cross examination to show that due to otherwise reason the police officials implicated the appellant. It has also not come in evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that under any plan the convict appellant has been booked in this case. So there was recovery of country made gun and cartridges and he had kept in his house and country made gun was being possessed or the same was found in possession and cartridges were also kept concealed in waist and accordingly cartridges also recovered. So there is a clear case under which the convict appellant has been charged and found proved levelled against the convict appellant and therefore, on consideration of entire evidence I find that so far the sentence and fine u/s 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act is concerned the minimum sentence has been given for imprisonment and so far sentenced passed u/s 26(1) of the Arms Act is concerned is not excessive and also imprisonment in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment has been awarded which also does not require any modification. Considering the nature of the offence and the recovery of effective gun and live cartridges I find that the learned court below has rightly not given benefit of being first offender or any other provision wherein I find no illegality, no perversity and charges have been substantiated by the prosecution”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality in consideration of the matter in the two courts below. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Uday/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)