A Criminal Appeal was filed against the Judgment of conviction. Order of sentence dated 16.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega. The Appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary because there were no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment.
Facts
Kolebira P.S. who was the Officer-in-charge and informant S.I. Niraj Kumar Singh along with armed police party started from the police station on 13.06.2010 at about 9.30 A.M. in day patrolling. During the patrolling, around 11:45 A.M., he received secret information about PLFI extremist Binod Lohra.
He was wanted in several criminal cases. He along with his associate, Rajan Baitha were standing in the passenger shed near Bano Chowk to execute his criminal act. Along with the police party, the informant rushed to the passenger shed. When they saw the police party who were surrounding them, both of them started fleeing only to be apprehended by the police later.
On being questioned, they disclosed their names as Binod Lohra, also known as Binod Toppo, Gainda and Raju and Rajan Baitha also known as Ravan. In the presence of two independent witnesses, their body was searched when one loaded countrymade pistol was recovered from the waist of Binod Toppo. (Petitioner No.1) Three living cartridges of .315 bore were also recovered with one Nokia mobile.
The accused Rajan Baitha (Petitioner No.2) had two live cartridges of .315 bore and one mobile. On being asked, they could not produce any paper about the recovered arms and ammunition. The recovered articles were seized after preparation of the seizure list and the Petitioners were arrested. The Petitioners filed a criminal appeal against the Judgement of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.
Arguments
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that two cartridges were recovered from Petitioner No.1 and one country-made pistol along with one cartridge from Petitioner No.2. He submitted that on the date of the incident the petitioners were 19 and 18 years old and the age of the Petitioners are 22 and 21.
The Learned Counsel referred to Section 25(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and submitted that the maximum punishment which could have been imposed upon the petitioners is one year with fine or with both.
The Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than a year. The period of custody of the petitioners have been from 13.06.2010 to 13.02.2011 at the stage of the trial.
Then from 17.03.2015 to 30.06.2015 when the matter was pending before this Court. He submits that the Petitioners were enlarged on bail vide order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
But, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State who opposed the prayer submitted that argument in connection with Section 25(2) and Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Arms Act 1959, was never raised by the petitioners at any stage.
Even in the memo of the Petition, this plea has not been raised. It was also mentioned that the petitioners weren’t framed under the sections for which argument had been advanced on behalf of the Petitioners.
He also submitted that so far as merits of the case are concerned, there are consistent finding of facts recorded by the Learned Courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgments and thus, they do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment
The Court found that since there has been no perversity illegality in the previous judgement given by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega, the case has been dismissed.
Click here to read the judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
