Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 455 (JHR)

Md. Aftab v. State of Jharkhand

2024-04-29

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2018 whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and has confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 25(1-B)( a) /35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Ranchi in G.R. No.2897 of 2009 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.482/2009. However, the learned appellate court has reduced the sentences of the petitioners to Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 25(1-B)( a) /35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for two months and both the sentences were directed run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded against the petitioners by both the courts, but the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference. He has submitted that there are serious discrepancies in connection with the time of occurrence. P.W.-1 has stated the time of occurrence to be 23.45 hours; P.W.-2 has stated it to be 22.00 hours; P.W.-3 has stated the time to be 23.45 hours, and P.W.-4 has stated the time of occurrence as 18.30 hours. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged by police personnel and the seizure was also done by the police personnel, but the seizure list witnesses have not been examined. The learned counsel further submitted that the seizure had taken place in a crowded area, but in spite of that seizure witnesses have not been produced before the learned trial court and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. He further submitted that although it has been alleged that a knife was also recovered, but the seizure list does not mention about recovery of knife. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that no case under Section 35 of the Arms Act is made out against the petitioners as the seizure is not from any premises. He further submitted that although it has been alleged that a knife was also recovered, but the seizure list does not mention about recovery of knife. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that no case under Section 35 of the Arms Act is made out against the petitioners as the seizure is not from any premises. He submitted that there is recovery of only one fire arm and there are two accused. As per the prosecution case, the fire arm has been recovered from the Petitioner No.1 Md. Aftab and therefore, there was no occasion to convict the Petitioner No.2. The learned counsel submitted that the seizure list was not prepared by the Investigating Officer, rather it was prepared by the informant who is the officer-in-charge of the police station. 6. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 11 SCC 709 (Megha Singh versus State of Haryana) to submit that in absence of independent witnesses regarding seizure, the conviction cannot be sustained. He also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Sans Pal Singh versus State of Delhi reported in (1998) 2 SCC 371 . 7. He submitted that two cases were lodged out of the same occurrence, one was regarding the loot which had taken place by way of snatching money from the victim and it was alleged that the recovered arms and knife were used for the purpose, but a separate present case has been lodged under the Arms Act. He submitted that such a course of instituting two F.I.Rs arising out of the said incident is not permissible in law. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 (T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and Others). 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the seizure has been sufficiently proved and it is not mandatory to examine the seizure list witnesses. He also submitted that official witnesses who are the police officials in the present case are the witnesses to the search and seizure and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. There is a presumption that official witnesses will act in a good faith and no enmity or otherwise has been brought on record by the petitioners to disbelieve the testimony of the official witnesses. There is a presumption that official witnesses will act in a good faith and no enmity or otherwise has been brought on record by the petitioners to disbelieve the testimony of the official witnesses. He further referred to Section 100(5) of the Cr.P.C. to submit that the question of production of seizure witnesses arises only when it is called upon by the court. He has also submitted that no other F.I.R. has been exhibited before the learned trial court to substantiate the argument that the arising out of the same incident/allegations, two F.I.R.s were lodged and in fact the other FIR has not been exhibited to show the exact allegations made in the so called second FIR. 9. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Jhar 1808 (Ravi Nepali and Another versus State of Jharkhand) particularly Para-6 thereof to submit that when independent witnesses to the seizure list have not been produced, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel submitted that summons was issued to the independent witnesses, but they did not appear and therefore even the court wanted the independent witnesses to appear and prove the prosecution case. The benefit of non-appearance of the independent witnesses should go in favour of the petitioners. 10. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners have already remained in custody for a period of about one and a half years out of the maximum sentence of two years as modified by the learned appellate court. The learned counsel submitted that as per the available records there are no criminal antecedent against the petitioners. 11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the self-statement of the Informant namely, Anil Shankar, Inspector-cum-officer-in-charge, Kotwali P.S., Ranchi alleging that while patrolling on 13.07.2009, he received information at about 11.45 P.M. that two miscreants has snatched away the bag and mobile of a person on the point of pistol and knife and one miscreant armed with knife was caught hold by the public and the other miscreant has run away. After receiving information, the Informant alongwith the patrolling party proceeded towards the place of occurrence and when he reached near Govind Bazar, he saw crowd on the road and one person was going from north to south direction and on seeing the police he started fleeing away. The police chased and apprehended the miscreant and on search, one pistol loaded with one cartridge was recovered from his waist. On being quarried, he disclosed that prior in some time, he alongwith another person had looted one bag and mobile of a person and on alarm Jawed was caught by the public. Thereafter, one Nishant Vishwakarma told the Informant that both the accused persons have looted his bag in which his educational certificates and Rs.2,000/- were kept and his mobile was also snatched away by the accused persons. It was further alleged that both the accused persons possessing illegal fire-arm committed the crime. 12. On the basis of the self-statement of the Informant, the case was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No.482/2009 dated 14.07.2009 under Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No.786/2009 dated 31.10.2009 was submitted against the petitioners under the same sections. On 03.11.2009, cognizance of the offence was taken against them under the same sections. On 15.12.2009, charges under Sections 25(1-B)( a) /35 and 26/35 of the 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. 13. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 is Anil Shankar who is the Informant of the case, PW-2 is Ramashray Sharma, PW-3 is Prem Narayan Choudhary, PW-4 is Govind Mahli, PW-5 is Rajendra Oraon, PW-6 is Md. Salauddin who is a formal witness who exhibited the seized arms as Material Exhibits- I & II and PW-7 is Ram Babu Sharma who is the investigating officer of the case. P.Ws.-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were the members of the raiding party. 14. The prosecution exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-1, self-statement of the Informant as Exhibit-2; endorsement made by the then Officer-in-charge, Kotwali P.S., Ranchi on the self-statement, as Exhibit-2/1; formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3; Forwarding Letter of Material Exhibits-I & II as Exhibit-4; Examination Report of the Sergeant Major as Exhibit-5 and the sanction order as Exhibit-6. 14. The prosecution exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-1, self-statement of the Informant as Exhibit-2; endorsement made by the then Officer-in-charge, Kotwali P.S., Ranchi on the self-statement, as Exhibit-2/1; formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3; Forwarding Letter of Material Exhibits-I & II as Exhibit-4; Examination Report of the Sergeant Major as Exhibit-5 and the sanction order as Exhibit-6. The prosecution also proved the seized pistol as Material Exhibit-I and the seized cartridge as Material Exhibit-II. 15. On 13.10.2015, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they simply denied the incriminating evidences put to them and claimed to be innocent. Both denied the recovery of the country-made pistol loaded with live cartridge without licence from their possession in the night of 13.07.2009 at Upper Bazaar Road, Ranchi. The petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence. 16. PW-1 is the Informant of the case who stated in his evidence that on 13.07.2009 in the night, he was on patrolling alongwith police force and when he reached near Govind Bhandar in Upper Bazaar, he was informed that Rupees two thousand and one bag was looted away from a person namely, Nishant Vishwakarma on the point of knife and pistol by some miscreants and one miscreant was caught hold by the public, whereas the other miscreant fled away. Md. Aftab was caught hold by the police. On search of Md. Aftab before two independent witnesses, one pistol loaded with cartridge was recovered from his possession, but no licence was produced by him. Seizure list was prepared which bears the signatures of the independent witnesses and Aftab and a copy of the seizure list was given to Aftab. On query, Aftab told that he alongwith Jawed has looted one Nishant Vishwakarma, but Jawed was caught by the public. Javed was also taken into custody at the place of occurrence near Govind Bhandar. Nishant Vishwakarma was also present there who identified both the accused persons and told that he was looted by them by showing pistol and knife. He further stated that the time was around 11.45 P.M. and the investigating officer had recorded his statement at 02:00 P.M. at the place of occurrence. The looted articles were kept in the Malkhana. 17. PW-2 and PW-3 are police witnesses who were members of the raiding party. He further stated that the time was around 11.45 P.M. and the investigating officer had recorded his statement at 02:00 P.M. at the place of occurrence. The looted articles were kept in the Malkhana. 17. PW-2 and PW-3 are police witnesses who were members of the raiding party. Both deposed that in course of patrolling, Aftab was caught by the police near Govind Bhandar and a pistol and knife were recovered from the possession of Aftab and Jawed was caught by the public and one bag and Rs.2,000/- cash which was looted away by the petitioners from Nishant Vishwakarma were recovered from his possession. Seizure list was prepared before two witnesses. PW-4 and PW-5 have also deposed that the Officer-in-charge had received information that some miscreants have looted away one bag in Upper Bazaar and one miscreant was caught hold by the public and the other miscreant was caught hold by the police. However, P.W -4 has mentioned the time as 6.45 P.M. 18. PW-6 is a formal witness who produced the seized country-made pistol and the cartridge before the learned trial court which have been marked as Material Exhibits-I and II. 19. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of the case and was also a part of the raiding team. He has fully supported the prosecution case. He deposed that he had taken the statement of witnesses and the witnesses supported the case of prosecution. He had visited the place of occurrence which is situated toward east-west direction on J.J. road in Upper Bazaar where on the point of pistol, they had looted a bag and mobile of a person. He proved the place of occurrence. He further deposed that seized arms and ammunition were sent for examination to Sergent Major and after examination, the same was found to be effective. He exhibited the sanction order issued by the Deputy Commissioner as Exhibit-6. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he found the case to be true under Sections 25(1-B)( a) /26/35 of the Arms Act against both the petitioners. 20. He exhibited the sanction order issued by the Deputy Commissioner as Exhibit-6. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he found the case to be true under Sections 25(1-B)( a) /26/35 of the Arms Act against both the petitioners. 20. After scrutinizing the material on record, the learned trial court recording its findings at Para-18 that as per the prosecution case, on 13.07.2009 at 22:00 P.M. in the night, the Informant alongwith police force had proceeded for patrolling and at 11:45 P.M., they received information that two miscreants have looted away one bag and mobile from one person and one miscreant has been caught hold by the public and the other miscreants is running away. When the Informant and the police force reached near Govind Bhandar at Upper Bazaar Road, they saw crowd on the road and one person was fleeing away through the Churuwala Misthann Bhandar Lane. After chase, he was caught hold and on search of his person in presence of two witnesses namely, Shankar Sao and Md. Imtiyaz, one loaded country-made pistol was seized from his possession, which was seized and a seizure list was prepared. On demand, he did not produce any paper for the recovered arm. He disclosed that a little while ago, he alongwith his associate namely, Jawed had looted away bag, mobile and money from one person and on raising alarm, Jawed was caught hold by the public and he was running away. He disclosed himself as Md. Aftab. Thereafter, the Informant alongwith the raiding party and the apprehended person went to in front of the Govind Bhandar at Upper Bazaar where crowd was assembled and Jawed was caught hold. Nishant Vishwakarma told that when he was returning home from Tata, Md. Jawed and another miscreant on the point of pistol and knife looted away his bag containing clothes, educational certificates and Rs.2,000/- cash and raising alarm, Jawed was caught hold by the local people. The looted bag and mobile of Nishant Vishwakarma were recovered from the possession of Jawed and Nishant Vishwakarma identified his articles and he also identified Md. Aftab as the other miscreant who had fled away after committing the crime. On these allegations, the trial of the case was conducted under Section Sections 25(1-B)( a)/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and a separate case was lodged in connection with the incident of loot. 21. Aftab as the other miscreant who had fled away after committing the crime. On these allegations, the trial of the case was conducted under Section Sections 25(1-B)( a)/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and a separate case was lodged in connection with the incident of loot. 21. The learned trial further recorded at Para-19 that prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. PW-1 is the Informant of the case and the PWs- 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were members of the raiding party. PW-7 is also the Investigating Officer of the case. PW-6 is a formal witness who produced and exhibited the seized material exhibits. The learned trial court found that PW-1 Informant has fully supported his self-statement and he has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-1, his self-statement written by S.I. Ashok Kumar on his instruction as Exhibit-2, the endorsement on the self-statement as Exhibit-2/1 and the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3 and he also identified the petitioners in court. The learned trial court further recorded that the evidence of the Informant has been corroborated by the PWs- 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 in their respective evidences. 22. The learned trial summarized its findings at Para-20 and 21 that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses established that when the Informant alongwith the police force was on patrolling, he received the information about the incident of loot and saw Md. Aftab fleeing away who was caught hold by the Informant and the members of the raiding party and on search of his person, one loaded country-made pistol was recovered from his possession for which he did not produce any paper and the recovered loaded pistol was seized and a seizure list was prepared. Thereafter, the Informant alongwith the police force went to the place of occurrence where the incident of loot had taken place and found that Md. Jawed was caught hold by the public. In search of Md. Jawed, one knife and the looted articles of Nishant Vishwakarma were recovered from his possession which were identified by Nishant Vishwakarma. Nishant Vishwakarma also identified both the persons as the miscreants committing the occurrence of loot. Accordingly, the prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioners. PW-6 as per the direction of the Officer-in-charge of Lower Bazaar police station has exhibited the seized arms as Material Exhibits-I and II. Nishant Vishwakarma also identified both the persons as the miscreants committing the occurrence of loot. Accordingly, the prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and recovery of arms from the possession of the petitioners. PW-6 as per the direction of the Officer-in-charge of Lower Bazaar police station has exhibited the seized arms as Material Exhibits-I and II. Apart from this, the self-statement, the endorsement on the self-statement, seizure list, formal F.I.R. and the examination report of the seized arms submitted by the Sergeant Major have also been exhibited by the prosecution. The learned trial court found that except minor contradictions, there is nothing on record to discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their evidences have corroborate the evidence of each other. The learned trial court found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners namely, Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed were caught having possession of the illegal arms. Accordingly, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 25(1-B) ( a) /35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act. 23. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioners to Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence under Section Sections 25(1-B) (a)/35 of Arms Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, both shall undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for 3-3 months and both the sentences were directed run concurrently. 24. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and recorded its findings at Para-9, 10 and 11 of its judgment which read as under: “9. On perusal of evidences of prosecution witnesses, it transpires that all prosecution witnesses including informant and I.O. have supported the case of prosecution and deposed that on dated 13.07.2009 in late night, police patrolling party caught hold the appellant namely, Md. Aftab and on being search, a country made pistol and a live cartridge were recovered. Seizure list was prepared of seized articles. Seized articles were examined by the Sargent major and found to be effective as it transpires from the perusal of Ext 5. Seized articles were produced before court also by PW 6 which have been marked as Material Ext I and II. Seizure list was prepared of seized articles. Seized articles were examined by the Sargent major and found to be effective as it transpires from the perusal of Ext 5. Seized articles were produced before court also by PW 6 which have been marked as Material Ext I and II. Further from perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses it appears that they all were members of patrolling party and incident occurred before them. Witnesses have consistently deposed that after receiving the information informant alongwith police force reached the place of occurrence where accused Md. Javed was caught hold by public who alongwith another accused Md. Aftab had looted the bag and mobile of one Nishant Verma. For committing robbery another case was lodged by the aggrieved Nishant Verma. Further as deposed by the witnesses that another accused Md. Aftab was fleeing who was chased by the police and caught hold by police and on being search a pistol and a cartridge were recovered from his waist. 10. Though seizure list witnesses have not been examined, but only on this score, it cannot be said that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. As because all prosecution witnesses are eye witnesses before whom seized articles were recovered, I found no any discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses. Seizer list was proved by informant (P.W.-1). Witnesses remained unsaken in cross. 11. Thus, after carefully scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, I find that prosecution has succeeded his case against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned lower court has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 25(1-B)a/35 26/35 Arms Act. I find no any illegality in the judgment of learned lower court. Therefore, judgment of conviction passed by the learned court is hereby affirmed. So far as sentence is concerned, they are facing trial since year 2009, hence justice would meet, if the sentence is modified. As such sentence passed by the learned lower court is modified and accordingly, they are sentenced to undergo two years R.I. u/s 25(1-B)a/35 Arms Act and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, they are awarded two months S.I. One year R.I. u/s 26/35 of the Arms Act and fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, they are awarded additional two months S.I. Sentences passed in both sections shall run concurrently.” 25. In default of payment of fine, they are awarded additional two months S.I. Sentences passed in both sections shall run concurrently.” 25. From the perusal of the statements of the petitioners recorded u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C. it is apparent that both of them were put the same question. The only question put to them was as per charge and evidence, on 13.07.2009 at about 11 P.M. the accused along with other persons were found in possession of unlicensed loaded country made pistol, which both of them denied. No question was put to them in connection with loot of Nishant Vishwakarma and in fact the victim of the case namely Nishant Vishwakarma was not even examined as a witness of the case. Further, no question was put to Md. Jawed who was alleged to be in possession of a knife to commit the crime and was allegedly caught by public immediately upon looting Nishant Vishwakarma. Rather, there is no seizure of fire arm or knife from possession of Md. Jawed and/or from joint possession of the petitioners. It is also clear that Md. Jawed was allegedly caught on the spot by public and Md. Aftab ran away. Later on the police party came and apprehended Md. Aftab with unlicensed loaded country made pistol. The seizure list has no mention about joint recovery from Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed; the seizure list does not even contain the signature of Md. Jawed. Thus, the fire arm was recovered from possession of Md. Aftab; Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed were arrested at different point of time and at different places. There is no evidence on record in connection with their joint participation in commission of any crime much less in the crime of looting of Nishant Vishwakarma of Rs.2,000/- and his certificates. In fact, no seized money and/or certificates of Nishant Vishwakarma from the possession of Md. Aftab or Md. Jawed has been exhibited before the learned court. 26. This court finds that the basic ingredients for offence under section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 is not satisfied in as much there is no evidence in connection with joint occupation or joint control of the arms recovered from the possession of Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed, rather there is no evidence that Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed were together at any point of time. Aftab and Md. Jawed, rather there is no evidence that Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed were together at any point of time. No witness much less any independent witness has come forward to support the case of the prosecution that Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed had participated jointly or severally in looting Nishant Vishwakarma. So far as the witnesses examined in the case are concerned, they are all police officers and most of them were part of the raiding team who had arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident and on arrival when they saw Md. Aftab trying to flee, they caught hold of him and seized the fire arm i.e. loaded country made pistol and prepared seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses. 27. This court is of the considered view that non examination of Nishant Vishwakarma and no seizure from Md. Jawed of any knife or fire arm or the looted articles/money of Nishant Vishwakarma is a missing link in the prosecution story so far as Md. Jawed is concerned. There is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of Md. Jawed in absence of any recovery of fire arm from his possession or even joint possession with Md. Aftab and Md. Jawed. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Petitioner No.2- Md. Jawed beyond reasonable doubts. 28. This Court finds that both the learned courts have failed to consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter while convicting Md. Jawed by taking aid of Section 35 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the conviction of Md. Jawed on the basis of evidence brought on record by the prosecution before the learned trial court and confirmation of his conviction by the learned appellate court calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice, as the conviction of Md. Jawed is perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 29. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned judgements of conviction of Petitioner No.2-Md. Jawed is set-aside and consequently Md. Jawed is acquitted from the charges giving him the benefit of doubt. The bailors are discharged from their liability under the bail bond. 30. So far as conviction of Md. Aftab is concerned, the country-made pistol and the live cartridge (Material Exhibits-I and II) have been recovered from his possession. Jawed is set-aside and consequently Md. Jawed is acquitted from the charges giving him the benefit of doubt. The bailors are discharged from their liability under the bail bond. 30. So far as conviction of Md. Aftab is concerned, the country-made pistol and the live cartridge (Material Exhibits-I and II) have been recovered from his possession. This Court is of the considered view that merely because there were some inconsistencies in connection with the time of incident and recovery of fire arms from the possession of Md. Aftab, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. Though the prosecution witnesses are police personnel, but they have fully supported the case of the prosecution and they have been also cross examined. 31. In the case of Yogesh Singh versus Mahabeer Singh reported in (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. 32. In absence of other F.I.R. being brought on record before the learned trial court, no advantage can be given to the Petitioner No.1-Md. Aftab with respect to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Anthony (supra). Otherwise also the present case is confined to recovery of fire arms from possession of Petitioner No. 1 and no more. The prosecution has failed to link the recovery of fire arms with the loot of money and certificates from possession of Nishant Vishwakarma. 33. In Megha Singh (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case was under Section 6(1) of TADA and Section 25 of Arms Act and on search of the person of the accused therein, a country-made pistol and three live cartridges without any valid licence were recovered from his possession. The Complainant himself had carried on the investigation of the case and had examined the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that such practice should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. The Complainant himself had carried on the investigation of the case and had examined the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that such practice should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In the present case, the informant and the investigating officer of the case are the different persons and there is no material doubting the credibility of the witnesses and they have been fully cross examined. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed in the case of Megha Singh (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 34. So far as the judgement passed by this Court in the case of “Ravi Nepali and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand” in Cr. Revision No. 523 of 2013 decided on 20.11.2019 is concerned, the same also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, in as much as, in the said case neither the independent witnesses/seizure list witnesses were examined, nor the investigating officer of the case was examined. In the present case, not only the investigating officer of the case has been examined, but also the informant of the case and other members of the raiding party have been examined and all of them are eye witnesses to the seizure of arms; they have given consistent evidence in connection with the seizure of fire arm from Md. Aftab as already discussed above. 35. So far as judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sans Pal Singh (supra) is concerned, the same also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, loaded country made pistol was recovered from the convict and it was urged that witnesses of the public were available, but they were neither associated nor there was any explanation for not associating persons from the public in the matter of search and seizure and thus it was clear that police party did not ask any public witness to be the witness at the time of search of the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that public witnesses were available but no explanation for not associating any public witness in the matter of search and seizure was given and it was not the case of the prosecution that no public witness was available or none of them were willing to associate themselves. In such background the Hon’ble Supreme Court has acquitted the convict. In the present case, two independent witnesses from the public were associated with the search and seizure, however, they did not turn up before the court to depose in spite of issuance of summons/bailable warrant/non-bailable. Further, the evidence of the witnesses who were part of raiding team remained intact. In such circumstances, non-examination of the independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case. This court is of the considered view that the judgment of Sans Pal Singh (supra) does not help the petitioner no.1 in any manner. 36. This Court is of the considered view that even when the seizure witnesses have not been examined, the accused can be convicted on the basis of the evidence of the other official witnesses who were members of the raiding team, evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses if their evidences were found credible by the learned courts. The fact remains that although the seizure witnesses have not been examined in the case, but the seizure of fire arms from the possession of Md. Aftab has been proved and established by the other eye witnesses beyond all reasonable doubts. The plea regarding non examination of seizure list witnesses has been duly considered by the learned appellate court in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment wherein it has been held that seizure was proved and witnesses remained unshaken in cross examination. This Court finds no illegality or perversity with the aforesaid approach of the learned courts. The witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence and the evidences of the official witnesses were found to be consistent by both the learned courts below. There is nothing on record and there is no such argument advanced by the Petitioner No.1 regarding any reason for false implication of the Petitioner No. 1. 37. This Court further finds that the arms were not recovered from any premises, vehicle or other place in the joint occupation or under the joint control of the petitioners. There is nothing on record and there is no such argument advanced by the Petitioner No.1 regarding any reason for false implication of the Petitioner No. 1. 37. This Court further finds that the arms were not recovered from any premises, vehicle or other place in the joint occupation or under the joint control of the petitioners. Therefore, Section 35 of the Arms Act is not applicable against the Petitioner No.1. Accordingly, conviction of the Petitioner No.1 is modified from under Sections 25(1-B)a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act to under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act. 38. The records of the case do not reveal any criminal antecedent of the Petitioner No.1. He was arrested on the spot and was in custody since 16.07.2009 and was granted bail by the order passed by this court in B.A. No. 880 of 2010. His bail bonds were accepted on 15.04.2010. From the records of this criminal revision the Petitioner No. 1 surrendered before the court on 27.07.2019 and was granted bail by this court on 19.09.2019 and a few days must have been taken by him for furnishing bail bond. This Court further finds that the incident is of the year 2009 and he has suffered the rigors of the case for about 15 years. Thus, the Petitioner No. 1 has remained in custody for 11 months. 39. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the Petitioner No.1 is modified by exercising power under proviso to section 25(1-B). Accordingly, the sentence of the Petitioner No.1 for the offences under Section 25(1-B) (a) is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody with fine of Rs.20,000/- subject to the condition that the entire fine amount is deposited within a period of two months from today. 40. If the Petitioner No.1 fails to deposit the aforesaid fine amount within the stipulated time, the bail bond furnished by Petitioner No. 1 shall be immediately cancelled by the learned trial court and he shall undergo the sentence awarded by the learned appellate court. 41. However, sentence and fine imposed under section 26 of the Arms Act does not call for any inference. 42. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 43. 41. However, sentence and fine imposed under section 26 of the Arms Act does not call for any inference. 42. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 43. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 44. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.