ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 4. The criminal appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in G.R. No. 176 of 2010 / T.R. No. 215 of 2013 (arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No. 24/2010) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and they were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo additional imprisonment for one month each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone by the petitioners was directed to be set off. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are two petitioners in the present case. So far as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, two cartridges were recovered from his possession and so far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, one country made pistol alongwith one cartridge was recovered. The learned counsel submitted that as per the records, the date of incident is 13.06.2010 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 16.03.2013 and on the date of conviction, the age of the Petitioner No.1 was 22 years and age of the Petitioner No.2 was 21 years and accordingly, they were around 18 and 19 years on 13.06.2010. The learned counsel referred to Section 25(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and submitted that in view of Sub-section (2), the maximum punishment which could have been imposed upon the petitioners is one year with fine or with both and for that purpose, he also referred to Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Arms Act. 6. The learned counsel referred to Section 25(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and submitted that in view of Sub-section (2), the maximum punishment which could have been imposed upon the petitioners is one year with fine or with both and for that purpose, he also referred to Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Arms Act. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than a year and the period of custody of the petitioners have been from 13.06.2010 to 13.02.2011 at the stage of trial and then from 17.03.2015 to 30.06.2015 when the matter was pending before this Court. He submits that the petitioners were enlarged on bail vide order dated 30.06.2015 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer and submitted that argument in connection with Section 25(2) and Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Arms Act 1959 was never raised by the petitioners at any stage and even in the memo of petition, this plea has not been raised. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that even the charge was not framed under the sections for which argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He also submitted that so far as merits of the case is concerned, there are consistent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and therefore, they do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the self-statement of the informant S.I. Niraj Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge, Kolebira P.S. alleging inter-alia that he alongwith armed police party started from the police station on 13.06.2010 at about 9.30 A.M. in day patrolling. During patrolling at about 11.45 A.M., he received secret information that PLFI extremist Binod Lohra, who is wanted in several criminal cases, alongwith his associate namely, Rajan Baitha is standing in the passenger shed near Bano Chowk to execute his evil criminal design. Then the Informant alongwith police party rushed to passenger shed. During patrolling at about 11.45 A.M., he received secret information that PLFI extremist Binod Lohra, who is wanted in several criminal cases, alongwith his associate namely, Rajan Baitha is standing in the passenger shed near Bano Chowk to execute his evil criminal design. Then the Informant alongwith police party rushed to passenger shed. On seeing the police personnel who were surrounding them, both started fleeing, but they were apprehended by the police and on being asked, they disclosed their names as Binod Lohra @ Binod Toppo @ Gainda @ Raju and Rajan Baitha @ Ravan. By that time several persons assembled there and in presence of two independent witnesses when their body was searched, one loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the waist of Binod Toppo (Petitioner No.2 herein) and three living cartridges of .315 bore were recovered from the pocket of his trouser and one Nokia mobile was also recovered. Likewise, from the left pocket of trouser of the accused Rajan Baitha (Petitioner No.1 herein), two live cartridges of .315 bore and one mobile were recovered. On being asked, they could not produce any paper with respect to the recovered arms and ammunition. Accordingly, the recovered articles were seized after preparation of seizure list and the petitioners were arrested. 9. On the basis of the self-statement, the case was registered as Kolebira P.S. Case No. 24/2010 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners under Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the same sections. Charges under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act were framed against the petitioners which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. This Court further finds that the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses. P.W.-1 is Tushar Kant Jha who is the Sergeant Major who examined the seized arms and cartridges. He deposed that on 24.06.2010, one country made pistol and six cartridges were produced which he examined and found to be effective. He proved the examination report as Exhibit-1. P.W.-2 and P.W-3 are police constables and members of the raiding party who have fully supported the prosecution case and have also identified the petitioners in court. 11. He deposed that on 24.06.2010, one country made pistol and six cartridges were produced which he examined and found to be effective. He proved the examination report as Exhibit-1. P.W.-2 and P.W-3 are police constables and members of the raiding party who have fully supported the prosecution case and have also identified the petitioners in court. 11. P.W.-4 and P.W-8 are seizure list witnesses who have identified their signatures on the seizure list marked as annexure 2 and 2/1 but in their cross examination they have stated that nothing was recovered in their presence. P.W.-5 (Sanjay Kumar Das), P.W.-6 (Bandilal Singh) and P.W.-7 (Md. Irsad Ansari) were declared hostile by the prosecution. 12. P.W.-9 is the Informant of the case. He exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-2/2 and his self-statement as Exhibit-3 and the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. P.W.-10 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the place of occurrence. He exhibited the sanction order as Exhibit-6. He produced the seized arms in court in sealed condition and exhibited the five cartridges as Material Exhibits- M1 to M5 and also exhibited the mobile sets recovered from the possession of the petitioners as Material Exhibits- M7 & M8. 13. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed to be innocent and took the plea of false implication. 14. This Court further finds that the learned trial court considered the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and recorded its findings in Para-14. The learned trial court found that the prosecution has exhibited the sanction order as Exhibit-6 and the report regard recovery of the loaded country-made pistol and the live cartridges as Exhibit-1. The Investigating Officer produced the country-made pistol and the live cartridges in court. The country-made pistol has been marked as Material Exhibit-M and the five cartridges as Material Exhibits- M/1 to M/5 and the pellet of one cartridge has been marked as M/6. Both the mobiles recovered from the possession of the petitioners have been marked as Material Exhibits-M/7 and M/8. 15. The learned trial also recorded the details of the articles recovered from possession of the petitioners. Both the mobiles recovered from the possession of the petitioners have been marked as Material Exhibits-M/7 and M/8. 15. The learned trial also recorded the details of the articles recovered from possession of the petitioners. The learned trial court recorded that P.W.-2 in Para-3 and 4, P.W.-3 in Para-2 and P.W.-9 in his examination-in-chief stated that one country –made pistol, 3 live cartridges and one mobile were recovered from the possession of the Petitioner No.2 and two live cartridges and one mobile were recovered from the possession of Petitioner No.1. P.W.-1 (Sergeant Major) has stated that he had examined one country-made pistol and 6 live cartridges and found them effective. P.W.-10 (Investigating Officer) produced the seized country-made pistol, 5 live cartridges and one pellet which were examined by P.W.-1 by firing and he also produced the recovered mobiles from the possession of the petitioners and identified them as Material Exhibits- M1 to M8. 16. The learned trial court after considering the materials on record and the arguments of the petitioners, convicted the petitioners under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act, but acquitted them from the charges under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as mentioned above. The learned trial court rejected the arguments of the petitioners that the petitioners could not have been convicted on the evidence of the police officers who formed a part of the raiding team. This court finds that the witnesses were cross examined and there is nothing on record alleging any enmity of the petitioners with the police officers or any reason to falsely implicate the petitioners and their evidence is consistent and therefore there was no reason for the learned trial court to reject the evidence of police officers who consistently deposed in favour of the prosecution case. 17. Before the learned appellate court it was submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charge levelled against the petitioners and the learned trial court did not consider the vital lacunas in the prosecution case and has erroneously convicted the petitioners U/s. 25(1-B)a, 26 of Arms Act. 17. Before the learned appellate court it was submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charge levelled against the petitioners and the learned trial court did not consider the vital lacunas in the prosecution case and has erroneously convicted the petitioners U/s. 25(1-B)a, 26 of Arms Act. It was argued that P.W.-1 Sergeant Major had stated in his examination-in-chief that country made pistol and five cartridges were produced before him for examination on 24.06.10, while as per prosecution case, those arms and ammunition were recovered from the possession of the petitioners , but prosecution failed to prove as to where those cartridges and country made pistol were kept prior to its production before the Sergeant Major for examination. It was also argued that there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-3 regarding the sealing of the recovered arms and cartridges and it creates doubt as to whether those arms and cartridges were seized at the P.O. or not. It was also argued that independent witnesses of both the seizure list have turned hostile. 18. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court also considered the evidences of the prosecution witnesses in detail and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and recorded its findings in Para-10 of its judgments which reads as under: “10. From the discussions made above, it is crystal clear that the witnesses of the police raiding party have categorically stated that on the alleged day, date and time of occurrence, both the accused/appellants were apprehended by the informant and members of his patrolling party at the PO on secret information and when in presence of witnesses their body was searched one country made pistol and three living cartridges and one Nokia mobile was recovered from the possession of accused Binod Toppo and two living cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Rajan Baitha. They could not produce any paper with respect to the recovered articles. Hence it was seized in presence of independent witnesses after preparation of seizure list. Though the seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W.-4 and PW-8 have stated in their cross-examination that nothing was recovered in their presence. But in their examination-in-chief, they have proved their signature on the seizure list marked as Exhibit- 2 and 2/1 respectively. But P.W.-8 has not whispered as to where his signature was taken. Though the seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W.-4 and PW-8 have stated in their cross-examination that nothing was recovered in their presence. But in their examination-in-chief, they have proved their signature on the seizure list marked as Exhibit- 2 and 2/1 respectively. But P.W.-8 has not whispered as to where his signature was taken. So far as the sealment of arms is concerned, P.W.-9 the informant has clearly stated that he has sealed the arms and cartridges in red cloth and kept it in Thana Malkhana. P.W.-1 Sergeant Major has also stated that seized arms and cartridges were produced before him for test which were in red cloth and there was signature of both accused persons and officer-in-charge on the seal. Though there are minor contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws regarding sealment of arms, but in my view, it is not fatal for the prosecution case. The Investigating officer has also stated in para-4 of his cross-examination that on the date of taking charge of investigation in this case, he has received the seized articles in sealed condition which were sealed in red cloth. So it is crystal clear that recovered and seized arms and ammunition were properly sealed at the P.O.” Thus, I find that prosecution in this case has successfully proved the charges levelled against the accused/appellants U/s 25(1-B)a,26(1) of Arms Act during trial and learned court below has rightly convicted the Accused/Appellants in this case and has rightly sentenced them. There is nothing illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned court below which in my view warrants interference of this appellate court. Accordingly, it is confirmed. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the L.C. Record sent to the court below for information and needful.” 19. This Court finds that P.W.-9 who is the Informant of the case has fully supported the prosecution case and has exhibited the seizure list, his self-statement and the formal F.I.R. P.W.-10 (Investigating Officer) has proved the place of occurrence and has exhibited the sanction order as Exhibit-6. This Court finds that P.W.-9 who is the Informant of the case has fully supported the prosecution case and has exhibited the seizure list, his self-statement and the formal F.I.R. P.W.-10 (Investigating Officer) has proved the place of occurrence and has exhibited the sanction order as Exhibit-6. He also produced the seized arms in court in sealed condition and exhibited the country made pistol as Material Exhibit-M and the five cartridges as Material Exhibits- M/1 to M/5 and the pellet of one cartridge as Material Exhibit- M/6 and also exhibited the mobile sets recovered from the possession of the petitioners as Material Exhibits- M7 & M8. P.W.-1, Sergeant Major who examined the seized country made pistol and cartridges has found them to be in effective condition and has proved his examination report as Exhibit-1. 20. This Court further finds that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were members of the raiding party and they have fully corroborated the prosecution case and they have also identified the petitioners in court. This Court finds that P.W.-4 and P.W.-8 are the seizure list witness and they have identified their signatures on the seizure list as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-2/1 respectively. 21. So far the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were below 21 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. on 13.06.2010 and as such, the maximum punishment which could have been imposed upon the petitioners is one year with fine or with both in terms of Section 9(1)(a)(i) read with Section 25(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 is concerned, this Court finds that the said plea has been orally taken on behalf of the petitioners for the first time before this Court in revisional jurisdiction simply on the basis that the age of the Petitioner No.1 has been tentatively recorded as 22 years and age of the Petitioner No.2 has been tentatively recorded as 21 years in the trial court judgment at the time of conviction. This Court further finds that no evidence was ever produced before the learned court below to establish that the petitioners were below 21 years of age on the date of occurrence and in fact no such plea was raised and in the present. This Court further finds that no evidence was ever produced before the learned court below to establish that the petitioners were below 21 years of age on the date of occurrence and in fact no such plea was raised and in the present. This court fully agrees with the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that such plea that the petitioners were below 21 years of age at the time of occurrence cannot be permitted to be raised by the petitioners for the first time before this court in revisional jurisdiction that too orally and without there being any foundational evidence in support of such plea. This court finds that the basic ingredients of offence under section 25(1-B)(a) and section 26(1) of the Arms Act are fully satisfied in the present case and accordingly the petitioners have been rightly convicted. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments considering every aspect of the matter and after considering every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments, no interference is called for. 23. Accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are upheld and this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 25. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are hereby cancelled. 26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed as not pressed. 27. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below. 28. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.