IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.200 of 2011 1. SURYABANSH SINGH S/O- LATE PARIKHAN CHANDRABANSHI 2. ANIL SINGH CHANDRA BANSHI SON OF SURYA BANSH SINGH CHANDRABANSHI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KONARK, P.S.- SHEOSAGAR, DISTT- ROHTAS (SASARAM). Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR - ---------- 2 17.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.6.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No. 09/2008 whereby on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with certain modification in sentence. Petitioners were framed under Sections 25(1-b)A and 26/35 of the Arms Act and put on trial vide Tr. No. 1184/2008. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined as many as 09 witnesses including P.Ws. 7 and 8 who were witnesses on the point of seizure. On a consideration of the materials on record, it was found that charges were proved and they were held guilty of possessing fire arms/ammunitions and accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. under Section 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act under each count with fine having default clause. Aggrieved over the said order, petitioners filed 2 appeal which was dismissed with certain modification. Learned Appellate Court found that materials were deficient and as such the conviction recorded under Section 26 of the Arms Act was set aside and the petitioners were acquitted of the said charge. Learned counsel submits that the seizure list witnesses (P.Ws. 7 and 8) have not supported the prosecution case in toto. Referring to the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 6), it is submitted that the same does not implicate the petitioners as it has not been deposed that the verification about the ownership of the house from where accused were arrested, was ascertained. It is next contended that one of the petitioners is a fairly aged person. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned orders. It is contended that the evidence of the I.O. has been appraised by the two Courts below who concurrently found his worthy reliance. It is submitted that such consideration of the evidence on record including that of P.W. 6 (I.O.) cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears that P.Ws. 7 and 8 have accepted their signatures on the seizure memo/list (Exts. 5/5/1). The other witnesses who deposed on behalf of the 3 prosecution were found trustworthy. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any perversity in the consideration of the matter by the two Courts below. This Court finds no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)