JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the State. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the legality, proprietory and correctness of the Judgment dated 2nd June, 2014, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 60/2013, by Learned Additional Sessions–II, Sahebganj whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The appeal was filed against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj in connection with Sahebganj (M) P.S. Case No. 49/2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 135/2001 (T.R. No. 52/2013) registered U/s 25 (1-b)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act. 3. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b) A of the Arms Act and further to undergo R.I. of 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fines, he was further ordered to undergo S.I. for one month and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Arguments of the petitioner 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and illegal and are fit to be set-aside on the following grounds: (a) The country made pistol was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather it was recovered from a Machan covered by Goyatha (cow dung cakes) and accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was found in possession of the alleged arms. (b) The seizure list witnesses have not supported the prosecution case to the extent that they have stated that they had put their signatures in blank paper in police station. (c) The informant of the case has not been examined, although the reason for non-examination has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that he had expired. 5. The learned counsel further submitted the sergeant major was not examined as a witness before the learned trial court and the investigating officer has proved the report with regard to the arms. (c) The informant of the case has not been examined, although the reason for non-examination has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that he had expired. 5. The learned counsel further submitted the sergeant major was not examined as a witness before the learned trial court and the investigating officer has proved the report with regard to the arms. The learned counsel specifically referred to the statement made by the investigating officer before the learned trial court as recorded in the learned trial court’s judgment that the investigating officer identified the signature of the sergeant major on the test report of the arms and accepted that the pin was absent from the hammer and when the pin will be set, the pistol will be in working condition and dangerous to life. 6. He submitted that the report itself suggests that the arm was not in working condition and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been convicted for illegal possession of arms. He submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the petitioner is fit to be acquitted from the case. Arguments of the opposite party-State 7. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating the evidences on record and the arguments of the petitioner have already been considered by the learned courts below. She submitted that merely because the pin was not found, it does not mean that the arm was of no use as the same could be brought immediately in a working condition by a small part of the weapon. She further submitted that this argument has been considered by the learned courts below and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. She also submitted that non-examination of the informant of the case or sergeant major has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner in any manner and accordingly, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count. 8. She also submitted that non-examination of the informant of the case or sergeant major has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner in any manner and accordingly, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count. 8. So far as the possession of the arm is concerned, the learned A.P.P. submitted that one country made pistol was recovered which was kept in concealed state beneath a machan covering with goitha installed within the boundary of the house of the petitioner and accordingly, it cannot be said that the arm was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and in fact, the arm was kept in a sealed condition. Findings of this Court 9. The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of the then Officer-in-charge of the police station Sri Narayan Singh. As per his self-statement, on 08.04.2001, he got confidential report that the petitioner is engaged in sale and purchase of illegal arms carrying from Munger. Upon this information, he proceeded for verification of the information alongwith police party and arrived at village-Hazipur, Diyara and with the help of two independent witnesses Umesh Prasad Mandal (P.W.-4) and Sri Ram Mandal (P.W.-5) raided the house of the petitioner and in presence of the petitioner searched was made in the machan situated within the boundary of the house. Upon search, under the dry cowdung (goitha), one country made pistol was found which was seized in presence of independent witnesses and the petitioner and when the pistol was opened, no cartridge was found inside it. The Officer-in-charge demanded paper regarding the arm, but the petitioner neither produced any paper, nor gave any reasonable explanation for keeping such arms. Then, seizure list was prepared and one copy of the seizure list was given to the petitioner on which the petitioner put his signature and the petitioner was arrested and brought to the police station for formal registration of the case. Thereafter, the case was registered as Sahebganj (M) P.S. Case No. 49/2001 and the investigation was given to the A.S.I. (P.W.-6). After investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959. The cognizance was taken and the petitioner was tried under the said sections. Thereafter, the case was registered as Sahebganj (M) P.S. Case No. 49/2001 and the investigation was given to the A.S.I. (P.W.-6). After investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959. The cognizance was taken and the petitioner was tried under the said sections. During trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the petitioner denied the allegations. 10. This Court finds that altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-3 is the constable who produced the material exhibit and on his identification, country made pistol was marked as Material Exhibit-1. This witness deposed that when the seizure list was made, he was not present and he is not a witness of the occurrence, rather he has identified the material exhibit. P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are seizure list witnesses and both have identified their signatures on the seizure list which have been marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/a. However, during cross examination, both the witnesses have deposed that they do not know about the occurrence and they had signed over the seizure list in the police station. 11. P.W.-6 is the investigating officer of the case who has supported the entire incident and his investigation. This witness has identified his self-statement and his signature on it and has proved the seizure list and signature of the petitioner on the seizure list and the formal F.I.R. as Exhibits. It also appears that the seizure list has been marked twice and so Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-4 are one and the same exhibit. During cross-examination, this witness has denied that signatures of seizure list witnesses were taken at police station and he contradicted the statements of the seizure list witnesses and specifically stated that at the place of occurrence, he had recorded the statements of seizure list witnesses. He has also stated that seizure list witnesses had supported the seizure in their statements during investigation. This witness has also identified the signature of Sergeant Major on the test report of arms and he has accepted that pin was absent from the hammer and when the pin will be set, the pistol will be in working condition and dangerous to life. This witness has also identified the signature of Sergeant Major on the test report of arms and he has accepted that pin was absent from the hammer and when the pin will be set, the pistol will be in working condition and dangerous to life. Thus, P.W.-6 is one of the officers who was a part of the raiding party and has fully supported the occurrence and seizure of pistol. 12. The specific case of the defence before the learned trial court was as follows: - “On the other hand, learned defence counsel has argued that as per evidence of seizure list witnesses, there was no seizure in their presence and their signatures were taken at police station. So seizure is fully false and only with a view to implicate this accused, such seizure has been made by the police. The learned defence counsel also pointed out that informant-cum- seizing officer has not been examined, hence the case of prosecution is fully doubtful. The learned defence counsel also pointed out that it has been accepted by prosecution that as per evidence of I.O., Sergeant Major has reported that without setting pin in hammer, the pistol is not workable and in such circumstances, this alleged pistol is nothing but an iron toy and in such seizure, if supposes to be true, then it may be taken as seizure of iron toy and not pistol. The learned counsel has cited the case law in which only police officials are witness of occurrence in arms case, then conviction can not be sustainable and in this regard, the learned defence counsel cited AIR 1999 S.C. page 49, the learned counsel on the basis of above arguments finally submitted that accused is entitled for acquittal.” 13. After discussing the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner by a well rasoned judgement and held as follows: - “12. On going through the case record, evidences above discussed and considering the arguments of both the sides, it is apparent that prosecution witness no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 have supported the case of seized country made pistol from the house of accused Radhey Thakur. But it appears from the evidence of P.W.-4 and 5 (who are seizure witnesses) that they have identified their signatures on the seizure list, but denied about such seizure. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 have supported the case of seized country made pistol from the house of accused Radhey Thakur. But it appears from the evidence of P.W.-4 and 5 (who are seizure witnesses) that they have identified their signatures on the seizure list, but denied about such seizure. In this contest, argument of both sides are taken into consideration and then it appears that both witnesses are villagers of accused, so tendency of helping villagers cannot be ruled out, as submitted by prosecution. In this regard, evidence of I.O. may be taken for consideration and on going through the evidence of I.O., it appears from para-7 and 17 that I.O. has stated that before him both seizure list witnesses have supported about seizure. It is also considerable that on the seizure list, signature of Radhey Thakur (accused) is also available. So, this factor suggests that there was seizure upon which witness and accused have put their signatures, but now they have denied about any seizure though they have accepted their signatures. So, all these pieces of evidence should be taken in the context of whole case and its circumstances. On going through the evidence of I.O. it is apparent that only attaching pin in hammer, the pistol will be workable and in such circumstances, this seized pistol cannot be taken as toy, rather it will come into the purview of Arms. During course of argument, learned A.P.P. also pointed out that informant-cum-seizing officer, Sri Narayan Singh has expired, so due to his death, he could not be examined in this case, but his statement of full occurrence has been supported by P.W.-6 and 7 who are I.O. and officer, in raiding party respectively. So only due to death of Sri Narayan Singh, accused cannot take advantage of non-examination of informant or seizing officer. On going through the case record, it is apparent that test report of arms and prosecution for sanction has also been brought into evidence. So the denial of seizure during evidence of seizure witnesses are excluded as false part and only their signatures be taken as true on the seizure list and this case of prosecution is proved with help of other P.Ws and such doubts are not here for which benefit of doubt may be given to accused.” 14. So the denial of seizure during evidence of seizure witnesses are excluded as false part and only their signatures be taken as true on the seizure list and this case of prosecution is proved with help of other P.Ws and such doubts are not here for which benefit of doubt may be given to accused.” 14. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned trial court was of the view that considering the nature of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under Probation of Offenders Act and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 25(1-b)A of Arms Act and to undergo rigorus imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 26 of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for each fine and it was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 15. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal and the learned appellate court considered the evidences on record and also considered the statements of the petitioner under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the petitioner has totally denied the prosecution story. 16. The learned appellate court, after carefully scrutinizing the evidences on record, gave concurrent findings and held the petitioner guilty of offence. The learned appellate court also observed that the witness were put to lengthy cross-examination and they remained consistent to the previous version so far it relates to the factum of raiding and consequent recovery of country made pistol from the house of the petitioner. The learned appellate court carefully scrutinized the testimony of the police officers and recorded a finding that the investigating officer has given vivid description of place of occurrence clarifying that the place of occurrence is the very machan made out of bamboo situated just besides the northern side of the room of the petitioner where there was a store of goitha where unloaded pistol was recovered and this witness has also made it clear that he had recorded the statements of seizure list witnesses at the place of occurrence. The learned appellate court considered the arguments of the petitioner denying recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner and also absence of hammer pin making the recovered arm unworkable and hence a mere iron toy. The learned appellate court considered the provision of Section 45(a)(c) of the Arms Act, 1959 and rejected the arguments of the petitioner. 17. Section 2(1)(e) of Arms Act, 1959 defines “fire arms” 2(e) “firearms” means arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes, — (i) artillery, hand-grenades, riot-pistols or weapons of any kind designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other such things, (ii) accessories for any such firearm designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing thereof, (iii) parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, firearms, and (iv) carriages, platforms and appliances for mounting, transporting and serving artillery; 18. Section 45 of Arms Act, 1959 deals with certain cases where the Act does not apply. 45. Act not to apply in certain cases. —Nothing in this Act shall apply to— (a) …… (b) ……. (c) any weapon of an obsolete pattern or of antiquarian value or in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a firearm either with or without repair; (d) the acquisition, possession or carrying by a person of minor parts of arms or ammunition which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts acquired or possessed by that or any other person. 19. This Court finds that the definition of Arms under the Arms Act, 1959 is a very wide definition and Section 45 specifically provides that the Act will not apply interalia to any weapon of an obsolete pattern or of antiquarian value or in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a firearm either with or without repair. Meaning thereby that any weapon which is capable of being used as firearm upon repair will also be covered by applicability of Arms Act, 1959. In the present case, only hammer pin was missing in the pistol and upon fixing the pin the pistol would be workable. Meaning thereby that any weapon which is capable of being used as firearm upon repair will also be covered by applicability of Arms Act, 1959. In the present case, only hammer pin was missing in the pistol and upon fixing the pin the pistol would be workable. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that pistol without the hammer pin is also a firearm governed by Arms Act, 1959 as rightly held by the appellate court by referring to the provision of Section 45(c) of the Arms Act, 1959. 20. The learned appellate court specifically dealt with the arguments of the petitioner in connection with raid and recovery of firearms particularly the argument that the factum of raiding and seizure has not been established as the recovery was not made from the conscious possession and the same does not find corroboration from the testimony of independent witnesses. This point was rejected by a detailed reason as recorded in Para-12 of the impugned judgment. 21. The argument of the petitioner that the seized pistol when recovered was not fitted with hammer pin and hence, the same was recovered in unworking state and as such, it was a mere iron pistol toy was also considered by the learned appellate court by detailed reason as recorded in Para-13 of the impugned judgment. In the same Para-13, the learned appellate court considered the argument that the recovery of country made pistol has not been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner which made the prosecution case more doubtful and susceptive and the said argument was also rejected by citing reasons. 22. This Court finds that all the arguments which have been advanced by the petitioner before this Court were also advanced before the learned courts below and the learned courts below have considered all the evidences on record as well as the provisions of law and have recorded concurrent findings in connection with recovery of arm from the conscious possession of the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that the provision of Section 45(c) of Arms Act has been rightly dealt with by the learned court below while holding that merely because the pin was not found in the pistol, the same does not make it a piece of iron or an iron toy. This Court is of the considered view that the provision of Section 45(c) of Arms Act has been rightly dealt with by the learned court below while holding that merely because the pin was not found in the pistol, the same does not make it a piece of iron or an iron toy. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately considered by the learned courts below and no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the findings on this point. 23. 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 judgements considering every aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the same have been re-agitated by the petitioner before this Court again in revisional jurisdiction. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments, no interference is called for. 24. So far as the point of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that considering the nature of offence, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic consideration and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere on the point of sentence also. 25. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is dismissed. 26. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby cancelled. 27. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 28. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 29. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below. 30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.