JUDGMENT : Both these criminal revision applications arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court, as such, both these applications are heard together and are being disposed of by common order. 2. Petitioner Imitiyaz Rehman in Cr. Revision No. 396/2009 and the petitioner Nandan Kumar Yadav in Cr. Revision No. 543/2010, have filed these revision applications against the judgment dated 19.02.2009, passed by Shri D.N. Upadhyay, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (As his Lordship was then) in Criminal Appeal No. 183/2008, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and approved the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2008, passed by Shri Rajnandan Rai, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. No. 957/2007, arising out of Kotwali (Hindpidhi) P.S. Case No. 203/2007, holding the petitioners guilty of the offences under sections 25 (1-B) a, 26/35 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 25(1-B) a of Arms Act. They were further directed to undergo R.I for one year along with a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under sections 26/35 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I for one month. 3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Informant Satya Narain Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police posted at Kotwali (Hindpidhi) Police Station, alleging therein that on 16.03.2007 at about 9.30 pm, he intercepted a Maruti Van bearing registration no. BR-20E-6410 and apprehended these petitioners. On search, one 9 M.M. automatic pistol with a magazine loaded with six cartridges and one mobile phone were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Nandan Kumar Yadav while one loaded country made pistol and one mobile phone were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Imitiyaz Rehman. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidences available on the record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 5. Informant Satya Narain Rai has been examined as P.W-1. He has supported the case of the prosecution, as enunciated in his written report. On the basis of the evidences available on the record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 5. Informant Satya Narain Rai has been examined as P.W-1. He has supported the case of the prosecution, as enunciated in his written report. He has stated that on 16.03.2007, while on patrolling duty, at about 9.30 pm, he intercepted a Maruti Van bearing registration no. BR-20E-6410 and apprehended both these petitioners. On search, one 9 M.M automatic pistol with a magazine contaning six cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Nandan Kumar Yadav while one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Imitiyaz Rehman. He has stated that he has prepared the seizure list at the place of occurrence itself. He has proved the seizure list which are Ext.1 series. He has claimed to identify the petitioners in the dock. He has been cross-examined at length. During cross-examination, he has stated that seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence itself. 6. Ghuran Uraon (P.W-4) and Niranjan Bakhla (P.W-5) were members of the police party which had arrested the petitioners with the firearms. Both these witnesses have corroborated the statement of the Informant that firearms were recovered from the possession of the petitioners. 7. Asim Kumar Dasgupta (P.W-3) is the Ballistic Expert who had examined the firearms so recovered from the possession of the petitioners. He has stated that the seized firearms were in working condition. He has proved his report which is Ext.-5. 8. Yogendra Nath Gagrai (P.W-2) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the sanction order issued by the District Magistrate, Ranchi for prosecution of the petitioners under the Arms Act. Sanction order is Ext.-6. 9. On perusal of the documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that the seizure list relating to recovery of firearm from the possession of the petitioner Nandan Kumar Yadav is Ext.1. It further transpires that 9 M.M automatic pistol with a magazine containing with six cartridges were recovered from his possession. It appears from perusal of the seizure list (Ext.1/1) that one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Imitiyaz Rehman. It further appears from the report of the Ballistic Expert (Ext.5) that recovered firearms were in working condition. It appears from perusal of the seizure list (Ext.1/1) that one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Imitiyaz Rehman. It further appears from the report of the Ballistic Expert (Ext.5) that recovered firearms were in working condition. Ext.6 is the Sanction Order issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi approving the prosecution of the petitioners in the present case. 10. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that one 9 M.M. automatic pistol with a magazine containing six cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner Nandan Kumar Yadav, while one loaded country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Imitiyaz Rehman. Oral testimony of these witnesses stands corroborated by the seizure list which was prepared at the place of occurrence. Prosecution has been able to show that the seized firearms were in working condition. Prosecution has also proved the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioners. Firearms were recovered from the possession of the petitioners while they were going on Maruti Van at a public place. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioners for the offences under section 25(1-B) a, 26/35 of the Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the findings regarding the guilt of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Sentence passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. 12. Both these revision applications are dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.