HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HQN'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Criminal Appeal No.1449/1994 s. APPELLANT Lallu aMas Shiv Kumar Kachhi Versiss RBSPONDENT State ofM.P. (now C.G.) JUDGMENT POST ON V<\ NQVEMBER, 2009 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 13:01:19 +0530 '^ HJGHCOURTQFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SB: HON»BLESHm RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. APPELLANT RESPONDBNT Criminal Appeal No. 1449/1994 Lallu allas Shiv Kiiiaar Kachhi, S/o Suraj Kachhi , aged 26 years, R/o Village Ghuru, Ameri, P.S. Chakarbhata, Distt Bilaspur, M,P.(now C.G.) Versus State ofM.P. (now C.G.) Appeal U/s 374(21 ofthe Cr.P.C. Appearanee: Shri Viaod Tekaoi, counsel for fhe appeUaat, Shri Pradeep Suigh, Paael Lawyer for the State. JUDGMBNT (Delivered on )(5 .11.2009) 1. This cnniin.al appeal is directed agaiast fhe judginent of couviction and order of sentence dated 27th October. 1994 passed ia S.T. No. 19/ 1991, whereby fhe learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, BUaspur has convicted fhe appellao.t under Section 25 (1B) (h) ofthe Arms Act, 1959 (for short "the Acf] aad sentenced him. to undergo R.I. for 2 years aiid to pay a fine of Rs,500/-, ia default of payisient of fine to further undergo S.I, for 3 Bionfhs. 2. Prosecution stoiy, io. brief, is that on 19,4.1989 at 11:15 in the night, coniplaiaaat Raju @ Rajki.unar with his fattier, after shuttiag down his hotel situated at Jarhabhata Maadir Chowk, rctunied towards tiieir house by scooter, When fhey reached near hostel of Siadhi Colony, at that tiaie, fhe appeUaat along wifh oftier two accused persons, who were ridnig OTL scooter, stopped fheia, Coniplaiaaiit saw that accused-Vijay Kumar was ridiag scooter aad other t^ro accused persons were piUion riders, The accused asked the coinplahiaiit to give Rs. 100/- otihLen^ise they would be shot bv katta (pistol). However, fhe comLplamant said them fhat he did >;. not have money, whereupon the accused persons went from fhere. Thereafter, wheii the complamaiiLt reached square of Siadhi Colony, one of fhe accused persons armed wiUi katta (pistol), stopped them again and tlireatened to lcill thern by katta (pistol). Upou which, the complamaat caught the appeUant and raised hue aiid ciy ia order to secure himself Ou fliis, tiie co-accused - Vijay along wifh other accused persons iacluding the present appeUant fled from. fhere on scooter. On hearing cries, Dashrath (P.W,2), Kikka and ofher persons chased Uie appellaat and caught one of ttie accused persous i.e. fhe present appeUaiit aiid took hiai to tlie PoMce Station ~ Civil Liaes aad fhe coinplainaat lodged fhe report vide Ex, P-4. PoUce seized fhe said katta (pistol) froin fh.e appellant vide seizure laenio of Ex. P-3. Durmg fhie course of iavestigation fh.e scooter which was used by tlie accused persons was also seized from the co-accused-Vijay, vide seizure nienio of Ex.P-2, Stateiaents under Section 161 were recorded. After completiou of mvestigation, charge sheet was filed before fhe Additioual Chief Judicial Magistrate, BUaspur. In due course, fhe case was coniiaitted to the Sessions Judge, BUaspur. 3. The learaed Sessions Judge inade over fhe case to the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspui' for trial. The leamed Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge under Section 397 of the IPC aiid Sections 25 & 27 of the Act. Charges were read over aiid were explamed to fhe appeUao.t, The appeUaat abjured the guilt aad pleaded ifinocence aad his defence was fhat he has been falsely ioipUcated m the offence, 4. The learaed Additional Sessions Judge has, after evaluatmg tiie evidence available on record and heanng flie counsel for respective parties, arrived at a findiiig fhat fhe appeUant has violated Sectiou 3 of fhe Act aiid while acquittmg tlie appeUaat under Section 397 of the IPC aad Section 27 of the Act, convicted him under Section 25 (1B) (h) of tlie Act aad sentenced him as nientioned above. 11 '^. v'^ t' 4 ^ L" 5. I have hearct leanied couusel appeadng for both tlie parties aad also perused the raaterial available on record. 6, So far as the pennission to prosecute fhe appeUant tuider Section 393 of the IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Act is concem.ed, it is evident froni the statement of Ra&k Mohhamaid (P.W.6) tliat it has been approved by fhe Distdct Magistrate and on the basis of this permission; fhe fhen additional Distiict Magisti'ate Baasal has issued tlie nieaio tliereofwhich is on record, 7. Vijay Singh Kerketta (P.W.5) has stated that the FIR, Ex.P-4, was lodged by coxnplaiaaiit- Raju @ Rajkuinar. He further stated that he seized katta (pistol) froin fhe appellaat on 20.4.1989 as per Ex.P-3. He further stated that he had taken peiTuission froin fhe District Magistrate to send tiie seized katta (pistol) for its examio.ation to fhe autliorized officer. Thus the seizure of katta froni tlie appellaiit is proved because fhere is no contradiction ia his statenient. 8. Raju @ Rajkumar (P.W.4), complamant stated fhat when he was returaing fi'omi his hotel to his house, on way, fhree persons chased aad stopped hiia aad also assaulted him upon which he feU down froni fhe scooter, Thereafter tliey deiaianded nioaey froni him., However, he told theni fhat he did not have nioney. Thereafter, after some tinie they agaia stopped liini aiid deinaaded niouey, The appeUaiit has fhreateued hmi by katta (pistol), When he opposed, all offhe accused persons fled froiu there. Thereafter, he reported the inatter to tlie police. He furtlier stated tiiat in flie poUce station, the said katta (pistol) was sized by fhe police before him aiid he has signed the seizure memo of katta (pistol) which is Ex. P-3. He has also signed seizure raenio of scooter being used by tlie accused persons, which is Ex,P-2. 9. Dashrafh (P.W.2) has stated that he has signed the seizures ineino of Exs. P-2 & 3 by which scooter aiid katta (pistol) were seized by tlie poUce. He supported the statement ofVijay Smgh Kerketta(P.W.5). ~—— — 4 (% 1 10. It is evident froai the statenient of Vijay Siiigli Kerketta, (P.W.5). SJ. that a katta (pistol) was seized froiii fhe appeUaat and the seizure inenxo is Ex. P-3, Other witfiesses have also signed it. It is clear tiiat tlie said katta was seized from tlie appellaiit in. Mve condition aad for tliat the appellaat did not have aiiy licence nor the appeUaiit did show aiiy reason as to why testimony of Vijay Singh Kerketta, S.I., who seized fhe katta (pistol) from the appeUaiit, should not be beUeved, Thus tlie statenient of Vijay Kuinar (P.W.5) is reliable. The said katta (pistol) was also exaiuiaed aiid verified by Shankar Prasad Sharma (P.W.l) aad his report is Ex, P-1. In his report he stated tliat fhe seized katta (pistol) was in Uve condition, 11. Section 3 (1) of the Act reads as under: - 3, LieeQce for acquisitioa aad possessioa of firearms asid ammunitioii- (1) No person shall acquire, have io. his possession, or caiTy aay fireami or aniniunitiou unless he holds m this behalf a liceuce issued ia accordance witii tlie provisions of fhis Act aad fhe niles laade tiiereunder: Provided fhat a person may, without himsetf holdmg a Ucence, cany aay fii'eai-ms or ammumtion ia fhe presence, or under fhe writteu autiiority^ of fhe holder of fhe licence for repair or for renewal of the Ucence or for use by such holder. In fhe present case katta (pistol) was seized froni the uuautliorized possessioii of tlie appellant siace he had no licence for holdiag fhe katta (pistol) aiid a perusal of fhe above provision shows fh.at tlie offence coniinitted by the appellaat falls under Section 3 (1) ofthe Act. 12, Chapter V deals with offence aad penalties whereunder punishment for unauthorized possession of arms or ammunition or j5rearm has been giveu under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Act, which reads as under: 25 (1B) Whoever- (a) acquu'es, has iix his possession or cames aiiy fiiearm. or ammunition ra coiitravention ofSection 3; or A perusal of the above shows tih.at whoever carries or oth.envise has ni liis possession, aay arms or aiiiniunition shall be (2</J puuishable wifh imprisonnient for a term which shall not be less thaa one year, but which niay extend to fhree yeai-s aad shatl also be Uable to fine. 13. After perusal of tlie charge sheet it is clear fhat the charge was framed against the appeUaat i.mder Sections 25 & 27 of tlie Amxs Act as he was found in unaufhorized possession of one Hve katta (pistol) without aB.y Ucence, He had been given entire opportunity to defend himsetf aad therefore no prejudice is caused to hiai, Thus, it is cleai' that tiie ofifeuce comnutted by the appeUaiit comes under Section 25 (1B) (a) offhe Act 14, Froni the aforesaid discussious, I am oftlie considered opiaion that fhe learaed trial Coiirt has rightly convicted the appeUant uuder Section 25 (1B) (a) ofthe Act [lurongly mentioned in the impagned judgment c^s 25 (1B) (h) ], There is no iUegality iiifimiity or junsdictional error coniniitted by fhe Court below waiTan.tio.g interference io. the appeal by this Court. 15. In tlie result, the appeal being devoid of nierit is Hable to be dism.issed and is accordiagly dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge