CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 01 JH CK 0046

Ramesh Kumar Jain vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 16 January 2006 · Citation: (2006) 2 JCR 106

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Dhinakar, C.J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 340 words

N. Dhinakar, C.J.—The petitioner, on being tried and found guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months. The appellate Court confirmed the said conviction as well as the sentence. Hence, the present revision.

2.

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.2.1989, house of the petitioner was searched by Sri S.C. Jha, Officer-in-charge of Mandu police station of Hazaribagh district and on such search he found one rifle and five live cartridges. According to the prosecution, they were seized and seizure list was attested by the witness and a case being crime No. 69/89 was registered at Manclu Police Station. After investigation the final report was filed. The petitioner denied the allegations.

3.

Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contends that since S.C. Jha. the officer who is alleged to have seized the material objects from the petitioner''s house and the witnesses who were alleged to have attested the seizure list, not having been examined and the only witness who was examined by the prosecution before the trial, who is alleged to have attested the material objects having turned hostile, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the contraband was seized from the house of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.

4.

I have heard Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned APP, appearing for the State, who also admits that the officer, who prepared the seizure list, was not examined and that the attesting witness also turned hostile. It is also brought to my notice that there is no evidence to show that the said seizure was effected from the house of the petitioner.

5.

In absence of any evidence that the contraband was seized from the house of the petitioner, 1 am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for acquittal and he is accordingly acquitted.

6.

The revision is allowed. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case(s).