IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.303 of 2002
======================================================
Bijay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Mohan Lal Singh, resident of Mohalla-
Gardanibagh, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna.
Versus
State Of Bihar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision
application against the judgment and order dated 7.02.2002
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VII, Patna in
Cr. Appeal No.110/1993 by which the conviction and sentence
of the petitioner under Section 25 (a) and 26 of the Arms Act
has been confirmed.
The prosecution case in brief is that on getting
secret information, the informant raided the house of the
accused petitioner and on seeing the raiding party, the accused
started to run away after jumping through a window, but he was
apprehended by the police and on his search in presence of two
witnesses, a country made pistol and a live cartridge of 315 bore
were recovered and seized from the waist of the petitioner. A
seizure list was prepared and the accused petitioner was
forwarded to custody and the police instituted the case under the
2
Arms Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.
Cognizance was taken and after trial the petitioner was
convicted under Sections 25 (a) and 26 of the Arms Act and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and both
the sentences to run concurrently vide order dated 21.05.1993
passed in G.R.No.3961/90, Trial No.253/93 arising out of
Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.541/93. Against this order, the
petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.110/93, which has been
dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned trial court has been confirmed.
Learned counsel for the State submits that there is
concurrent finding by both the courts’ below and the learned
trial court has given the minimum punishment to the petitioner.
This revision application is being disposed of
without waiting for further time for the petitioner.
It appears that the learned trial court has
considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
A loaded country made pistol has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner and the pistol and cartridge have
been sent for the examination and it has been found that arms
and cartridge were fit to be used. Learned appellate court has
considered the evidence carefully and thereafter he has upheld
the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned trial
3
court.
Considering the facts and circumstances as stated
above, I do not find any ground to disagree with the concurrent
finding of both the courts below. The sentence is also not
excessive. Further, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order. The bail granted vide order dated 22.04.2002
by this Court to the petitioner is hereby cancelled and the
petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court
to serve out the sentence.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated, the 29th July, 2011
N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey
