AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation
 “dk;kZy; dysDVj ,oa ftyk naMkf/kdkjh] jk;iqj",
vkns'k,
dzekad dA vfHk-fy-A95 jk;iqj] fnukad 14&7&95,
iqfyl v/kh{kd] jk;iqj ds vijk/k dzekad 220@95 /kkjk 25] 27 vkElZ ,DV ds rgr vkjksih iUukyky firk 'kadjyky 'kekZ mez 56 lky mi tsy /kerjh ls 1 ns'kh",
dV~Vk 12 cksj dk 4 dkjrql pkyw gkyr esa tIr fd;k x;k gS A vkElZ ,DV dh /kkjk 3 dk mYya?ku ,d naMuh; vijk/k gS A",
vr% vkjksih iUukyky 'kekZ firk 'kadjyky 'kekZ dks 'kL= vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr /kkjk 39 ds rgr U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS A,
lgh%&,
¼nsojkt fojnh½,
ftyk naMkf/kdkjh] jk;iqj,
i`""Bkadu dzekad dAvfHk-fy-A95 jk;iqj fnukad 14&7&95",
izfrfyfi%& iqfyl v/kh{kd] jk;iqj dks dzekad ,e-A12976A95",
fnukad 13&7&95 ds lanHkZ esa MqIyhdsV Mk;jh,
lfgr izsf""kr gS A",
gLrk{kj,
ftyk naMkf/kdkjh],
jk;iqjâ€,
From a bare perusal of the sanction order (Ex.P33) also, it is not clear that which documents were referred to and on what grounds the sanction",
for prosecution of the Appellant was accorded by the Collector. Hence, it is established that the Collector had not applied his mind before according",
the sanction for prosecution and it appears to have been granted by him in routine manner.,
From the above, it is clear that though the seizure witnesses Pratap Singh (PW28) and Baldeo Singh (PW29) have supported the seizure, but there",
is contradiction in their statements. One has stated that the seized articles were kept over the chhajja, but the other has stated that the seized articles",
were kept in an attachi which was kept over an almirah placed in the room. Hence, the seizure is doubtful. Apart from that, the seized katta and",
cartridges were examined by Head Constable Krishna Rao (PW21) on 18.7.1995. There is no evidence on record as to where and in which condition,
the seized articles were kept after their seizure and before their examination. It is also not established that the seized articles were placed for,
examination in a sealed condition. The sanction for prosecution (Ex.P33) also does not reflect that there was an application of mind by the Collector,
before granting it and it appears to have been granted by him in routine manner. Therefore, the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act",
against the present Appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.,
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge",
framed against him.,
It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of the provisions,
contained in Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,