Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 253 (JHR)

Tanbir Mian @ Tanvir Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2021-02-26

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2021
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases. 2. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha and Mr. Md. Hatim, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr. Rev. No. 878 of 2013 and Cr. Rev. No. 1051 of 2013 respectively. 3. Both these criminal revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 12.06.2013 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 32 of 2000/T.R. No. 10 of 2011 [Arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 13/2000] whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act. They were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 26 of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and the period of detention undergone by the petitioners would be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing his arguments submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses who were members of the raiding party except one of the seizure-list witnesses who is the only independent witness, but he turned hostile as this witness stated that his thumb impression was taken on 25.01.2000 at the police station and the other seizure list witness was not examined. He also submitted that the seized articles were not sealed at the place of occurrence and the sanction for prosecution has not been properly proved as only the signature on the sanction letter has been proved and marked as an exhibit. 6. He also submitted that the seized articles were not sealed at the place of occurrence and the sanction for prosecution has not been properly proved as only the signature on the sanction letter has been proved and marked as an exhibit. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that there was recovery of one country made pistol alongwith one cartridge from the possession of Tanbir Mian and one cartridge from the possession of Lalu Mian, but there was no recovery from the petitioner-Imran Seikh @ Mian. However, the learned counsel did not dispute the fact that all the petitioners have been charged on account of the allegation of joint possession of the arms. He also submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled for benefit of doubt. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Tanbir Mian @ Tanvir Ansari and Imran Seikh @ Mian (petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 878 of 2013) have already remained in custody for 5½ months and Lalu Mian (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1051 of 2013) has already remained in custody for 6½ months. He also submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2000 and more than 20 years have passed since the date of occurrence and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent which is apparent from the impugned judgments. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioners may be confined to the period already undergone by them in custody. But he did not dispute that the minimum sentences under the respective offences have been imposed upon the petitioners. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 8. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there are consistent evidences on record to convict the petitioners. They submitted that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence and coming to any different finding at the revisional stage. It is also submitted that there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. They also submitted that PW-2 has supported the prosecution case by clearly indicating the manner in which the arms were seized on the spot. It is also submitted that there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. They also submitted that PW-2 has supported the prosecution case by clearly indicating the manner in which the arms were seized on the spot. They further submitted that merely because some of the prosecution witnesses were members of the raiding party, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. Findings of this Court 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the impugned judgments as well as the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report of S.I. Rajesh Kumar of Jamtara P.S. lodged on 24.01.2000 before the Officer-in-Charge, Jamtara P.S. alleging inter-alia that in the night of 24.01.2000, the Informant alongwith other police personnel left the camp under special drive to arrest warrantees and for recovery of illegal arms. In course of patrolling, when they reached Karmatand Bazar at 11:00 P.M. they intercepted Motorcycle No. BR-23-3183 and apprehended three persons while they were trying to run away leaving the motor cycle. The apprehended persons disclosed their names as Tanvir Ansari, Imran Sheikh and Lalu Mian (petitioners herein) and on search, one country-made pistol loaded with one .315 bore cartridge was recovered from the left side of the waist of Tanvir Ansari and another cartridge of .315 bore was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of Lalu Mian. On demand, they could not produce any valid papers of the arms. Thereafter, the petitioners were arrested and the arms were seized in presence of witnesses and accordingly, two seizure lists were prepared. 10. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered as Jamtara P.S. Case No. 13/2000 dated 25.01.2000 under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No. 36/2000 was submitted against the petitioners under the same sections and on 05.06.2000, cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the same sections. 11. On 16.09.2003, charges under Sections 25(1-B), 26 and 35 of Arms 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. 12. This Court further finds that the prosecution examined altogether 04 witnesses to prove its case. 11. On 16.09.2003, charges under Sections 25(1-B), 26 and 35 of Arms 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. 12. This Court further finds that the prosecution examined altogether 04 witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 is Ranjeet Kumar Yadav - a member of raiding team, PW-2 is Rajesh Kumar who is the Informant of the case, PW-3 is Sarjan Baski - a seizure witness and PW-4 is Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha who is the Investigating Officer of the case. The Prosecution also exhibited the seizure lists as Exhibits-1 and 1/1, written report as Exhibit-2, Signature of the District Magistrate, Dumka on the sanction order for prosecution as Exhibit-3, endorsement on written report as Exhibit-4 and the arms inspection report as Exhibit-5. The prosecution also exhibited and marked the country-made pistol as Material Exhibit-1 and the cartridges as Material Exhibits-2 and 2/1 respectively. Exhibits were marked without any objection from the side of the defence. 13. On 25.07.2011, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they simply denied the incriminating substances put to them and claimed to have been falsely implicated. The petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence. 14. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf the prosecution and recorded its findings in Para-9 which reads as under: “9. In this way from the above discussed submissions of all the witnesses we gather that there is total coherence in this, their submissions regarding the apprehension of all the three accused persons on their suspicious movement in the night of 24.02.2000 near Karmatand Chowk during night patrolling by the Karmatand O/P personnels. The PW-1 and PW-2 are the members of this said raiding team and their submissions are in total tuning with each other and also with the original prosecution story. The PW-4 who happens to be the I/O as well as the then O/C of Jamtara P.S. has properly conducted the investigation regarding the inspection of arms procuration of sanction from the D.C. The seized pistol and cartridges have also been produced in the court. The PW-4 who happens to be the I/O as well as the then O/C of Jamtara P.S. has properly conducted the investigation regarding the inspection of arms procuration of sanction from the D.C. The seized pistol and cartridges have also been produced in the court. Thus the illegal possession of a country made loaded pistol by Tanbir Ansari and a cartridge from Lalu mian both kept in concealed manner and the knowledge of such concealed possession of arms and ammunition by the accused Imran Sekh reflected by his fleeing on the sight of police is well proved by the prosecution through its different witnesses. Though one of the seizure list witnesses who has turned hostile to the prosecution has however, accepted that he had appended his LTI on a blank paper on the alleged date of seizure.” 15. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court also considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the arguments of the parties and recorded its findings in Para-6 which reads as under: “6. After thorough scrutinizing the entire documentary and oral evidences of the prosecution and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that during course of special drive in patrolling the police party caught three persons who were tried to fled away on seeing the police party however they were caught by the police personnel and in course of search one live country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from their possession. PW-2 is the informant who is the head of raiding party has categorically deposed in his evidence regarding the occurrence and PW-1 who is the member of raiding party has supported the case of prosecution in his evidence. PW-4 is the I.O. of this case has properly conducted the investigation and he also stated regarding the inspection of arms and also the sanction order from the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and also on behalf of prosecution, the seized pistol and cartridges have also been produced in the court. Admittedly, the accused persons failed to furnish any document or paper in respect of the said seized illegal arms. Thus, the illegal possession of country made loaded pistol in possession of Tanbir Ansari and a cartridge from Lalu Mian both kept in concealed manner and the knowledge of such conceal possession of arms and ammunition by the accused Imran Sk. Admittedly, the accused persons failed to furnish any document or paper in respect of the said seized illegal arms. Thus, the illegal possession of country made loaded pistol in possession of Tanbir Ansari and a cartridge from Lalu Mian both kept in concealed manner and the knowledge of such conceal possession of arms and ammunition by the accused Imran Sk. reflected by his fleeing on the side of police is well proved by the prosecution. Though one of the seizure list witness turned hostile, but he accepted that he put his thumb impression in a paper, but he not specified why he not made protest if police took his thumb impression forcibly without his consent. Therefore it reveals that perhaps he gained over by the accused persons and that is why he turned hostile in the court. Further on behalf of appellants pointed out some contradiction between the deposition of prosecution witnesses, but the learned counsel for respondent denied about the alleged contradiction. On perusal of record it appears that though there are some minor contradictions which appears in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, but which are in my opinion natural as because the prosecution witnesses are not appeared to be tutored witnesses. Moreover, it is settled preposition of law that minor discrepancies could not be termed as major contradiction. Also the appellants failed to establish any previous enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the appellants or had any reason for making a false statement in the court against the accused persons (appellants).” 16. This Court finds that PW-2 is the Informant of the case and he deposed that on 24.01.2000, he was Sub-Inspector at Jamtara P.S. and on that day, he alongwith other team members left the police line for special drive towards Karmatand Bazar Chowk and when they reached at about 11:00 P.M. they found a motorcycle carrying some persons coming from Village Sitakata side. They waved to stop, but the persons started fleeing after leaving the motorcycle. With the help of his team mates, all the persons were apprehended and they disclosed their names as Tanbir Ansari, Imran Seikh and Lalu Mian. Upon search, a loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the left side of Tanbir Ansari with live cartridge of .315 bore and a live cartridge of .315 bore was recovered from the pocket of Lalu Mian. Upon search, a loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the left side of Tanbir Ansari with live cartridge of .315 bore and a live cartridge of .315 bore was recovered from the pocket of Lalu Mian. The articles were duly seized and a seizure list was prepared by him. He proved the seizure lists as Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively. He further deposed that the accused persons did not produce any paper in support of their possession of the seized articles. Thereafter, all the three accused persons were arrested and were brought to the police station where he submitted the written report in his own handwriting. He proved the written report as Exhibit-2. He also identified the signature of the District Magistrate on the order granting sanction for prosecution and proved as Exhibit-3. He also identified the pistol and the cartridges seized from Tanbir Ansari and Lalu Mian and exhibited as Material Exhibit-1, Material Exhibit-2 and Material Exhibit-2/1 respectively. During his cross-examination, he not only accepted that the seized material did not have Malkhana number but also accepted that the sanction order of the Deputy Commissioner also had S.D. mark and explained that the forwarding part of the order had his signature. This witness has given vivid description of the entire incident as to how the petitioners were apprehended while running away and also proved the seizure of the arms. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined and was also asked about local witness to the seizure-list and he told that due to fear, local persons did not turn up. He has also explained that though 50 persons had gathered at the time of occurrence, but non became ready to be the witness to the seizure-list. So far as the evidence of PW-1 is concerned, he is a member of raiding party and he has stated that he along with others, was on patrolling duty in Karmatand Bazar Chowk. This witness also has given description of the place, time and the manner of occurrence and his evidence is corroborating with the evidence of PW-2. He also recognized all the three accused persons present on the date of his deposition. This witness also has given description of the place, time and the manner of occurrence and his evidence is corroborating with the evidence of PW-2. He also recognized all the three accused persons present on the date of his deposition. Although, at the time of his deposition before the court and at the time of his cross-examination, the seized pistol and cartridges were not there in the court, but he could tell the bore of the cartridges as .315, however, he could not name the manufacturing company. It is relevant to note that the material exhibits i.e. the seized pistol and cartridges were duly exhibited by PW-2, informant of the case. These two witnesses were also thoroughly cross-examined and there was no material contradiction. 17. This Court finds that PW-4 is the Investigating Officer of the case and he deposed that on 24.01.2000, he was Officer-in-Charge, Jamtara P.S. and a drive was initiated to nab criminals and the Informant was directed to conduct the raid. This witness further deposed that after submission of written report alongwith three apprehended accused persons and seized articles, he registered the case and started its investigation. He further deposed that he had recorded the statements of the Informant and other witnesses and had also inspected the place of occurrence situated at the eastern side of the sweet shop of Ram Kumar Saw near Ganpati Chowk in Karmatand Bazar Market. He got the seized pistol and the cartridges inspected and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. He identified the signature of the Sergeant Major and exhibited the arms investigation report as Exhibit-5. This witness was also thoroughly cross-examined by the defence and this Court finds that the evidence of this witness is corroborated to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and there is no material contradiction. 18. So far as PW-3 is concerned, he is seizure-list witness, who turned hostile, but admitted putting of his L.T.I. upon the seizure list. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had put his L.T.I. when he was asked to do so by Daroga upon a blank sheet on 25.01.2000. The other seizure list witness has not been examined. 19. 18. So far as PW-3 is concerned, he is seizure-list witness, who turned hostile, but admitted putting of his L.T.I. upon the seizure list. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had put his L.T.I. when he was asked to do so by Daroga upon a blank sheet on 25.01.2000. The other seizure list witness has not been examined. 19. This Court further finds that PW-1 was a member of the raiding party alongwith PW-2 and he has supported the prosecution case with regard to recovery of the arms from the possession of the petitioners who were apprehended while trying to run away. Arms were recovered from physical possession of two petitioners and the third one who was along with them had full knowledge that illegal possession of arms was moving with them and also tried to run away. The petitioners were jointly convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act. 20. This Court finds that PW-2 has fully supported the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. and PW-1 and PW-4 have fully corroborated the evidence of PW-2 (informant) on the point of recovery of the arms from the physical possession of the respective petitioners and no doubt has been raised regarding identification of the petitioners. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the date, time, place and the manner of the occurrence and has also sufficiently proved the seizure lists as well as the identity of the arms recovered from the physical possession of the respective petitioners. This Court is of the view that when the Informant and Investigating Officer have sufficiently proved the prosecution case, turning hostile of one seizure list witness and non-examination of the other seizure list witness cannot be not fatal to the prosecution case in the light of the consistent evidences of the other witnesses on record. This Court further finds that there is no material, no suggestion and no evidence on record to indicate any ill-will or enmity between the petitioners and any of the witnesses so as to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case in any manner whatsoever. 21. This Court further finds that there is no material, no suggestion and no evidence on record to indicate any ill-will or enmity between the petitioners and any of the witnesses so as to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case in any manner whatsoever. 21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have recorded consistent and concurrent finding of facts that the petitioners, riding on a motorcycle, were intercepted and were apprehended when they were trying to flee away and one country-made pistol loaded with one .315 bore cartridge was recovered from the possession of Tanvir Ansari and another cartridge of .315 bore was recovered from the possession of Lalu Mian. The learned courts below have further recorded that on demand, the petitioners could not produce any valid paper of the arms and the petitioner-Imran Seikh @ Mian had the knowledge regarding possession of the arms in concealed manner by his associates. All the three petitioners were moving together in one motor cycle and when apprehended, they tried to run away. Arms were recovered from physical possession of two petitioners and the petitioner-Imran Seikh @ Mian had the knowledge regarding possession of the arms in concealed manner by his associates with whom he was moving on the motor cycle and he also tried to run away along with the coaccused. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in conviction and sentence of all the three petitioners. There is no scope of re-appreciation of the evidences on record and coming to a different finding in absence of any perversity. 22. In the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 , it has been held in Para-15 that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, however, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Para-15 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce the observations made by Venkatachaliah, J. in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal, (SCC pp. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce the observations made by Venkatachaliah, J. in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal, (SCC pp. 313-314, Paras 25-26) “25......Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. 26. The concept of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and ultimately on the trained intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimisation of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.” [See also Krishnan vs. State, Valson vs. State of Kerala and Bhaskar Ramappa Madar vs. State of Karnataka].” 23. This court is of the considered view that even when the seizure witness turned hostile, the evidence of other witnesses, if otherwise credible, can be made the basis to believe the seizure. In the present case evidence of the investigating officer and other witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and given consistent evidence have been relied upon by the learned courts below to convict the petitioners in spite of and considering the fact that the seizure witness did not support the case, but had admitted his thumb impression on the seizure list. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid approach of the learned courts below. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid approach of the learned courts below. In State of Kerala vs. M.M. Mathew, (1978) 4 SCC 65 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being pubic servants they are interested in the success of their case. This view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 . 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111 , while dealing with the appreciation of evidence in connection with hostile witnesses has held that merely because a witness is hostile, the evidence of such witness cannot be said to be completely washed off. In Para 16 to 18, it has been held as under: “Hostile witness 16. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. [Vide: Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana, Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka and Khujji vs. State of M.P.] 17. In State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, Gagan Kanojia vs. State of Punjab, Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh and Subbu Singh vs. State. 18. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, Gagan Kanojia vs. State of Punjab, Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh and Subbu Singh vs. State. 18. In C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, this Court, after considering all the earlier decisions on this point, summarised the law applicable to the case of hostile witnesses as under: (SCC pp. 596-597, Paras 83-85) “83.......the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. 84. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW-86) and R. Maruthu (PW-51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law. Some omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs. have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in nature. 85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. [Vide: Sohrab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash, Prithu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, State of U.P. vs. Santosh Kumar and State vs. Saravanan].” 25. [Vide: Sohrab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash, Prithu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, State of U.P. vs. Santosh Kumar and State vs. Saravanan].” 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the power of revisional court in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and Others vs. Ramayan Singh and Another, (2002) 5 SCC 659 at Para-9 as under: “Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged u/s 401 was to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to individuals. [See in this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary]. The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the application would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.” 26. The revisional power is further explained in the judgment reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at Para-13 as follows: “It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified where: (i) the decision is grossly erroneous. (ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law. (iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered. (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” 27. (ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law. (iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered. (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” 27. In the case of Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of revisional power held in paragraph-5 as follows: “5. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.” 28. This Court finds that the learned courts below considered each and every evidence of the witnesses as well as the material and documentary evidences on record and recorded concurrent findings. There is neither any material nor any reason to discard the evidence of the prosecution witness nos. 1, 2 and 4 who have fully supported the prosecution case in one voice and the petitioners could not show any reason as to why the police have implicated them without any fault. In this background, the learned courts below found that the case was established against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and punished the petitioners. 29. This Court further finds that the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is one year and the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act is six months. This Court is of the view that the learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and has sentenced the petitioners with the minimum sentences under the respective offences. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the limited scope under revisional jurisdiction, this Court finds that the learned courts below have passed wellreasoned judgments considering every aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the limited scope under revisional jurisdiction, this Court finds that the learned courts below have passed wellreasoned judgments considering every aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments, no interference is called for. 31. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is hereby affirmed and both the criminal revision petitions are hereby dismissed. 32. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 33. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled. 34. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed as not pressed. 35. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 36. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through “E-mail/FAX.” Revision Petitions dismissed.