Allowed

Amit Baitha v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2023Cr.Rev./211/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision applications filed by Amit Baitha and Shyamjee Soni, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitions and set aside the conviction under the Arms Act. The court held that the conviction could not be sustained as the prosecution failed to adduce the report of the Ballistic Expert and the sanction order for prosecution, both being essential for conviction under the cited sections.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeals allowing petitions and quashing the judgment of conviction and sentence. Pending I.A disposed of.

Amit Baitha Vs State of Jharkhand — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2011

¶2

Amit Baitha ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No. 105 of 2011 Shyamjee Soni ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party --CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. [Cr. Rev. 211/2011] Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P [Cr. Rev. 105/2011] ---

¶3

05 / 13.06.2023

¶4

Cr. Revision No. 211/2011 and Cr. Revision No. 105/2011 arise out of

¶5

the same impugned judgment. Accordingly, both these revision applications are being heard and disposed of by common judgment.

¶6

Petitioner Amit Baitha in Cr. Revision No. 211/2011 and the petitioner Shyamjee Soni in Cr. Revision No. 105/2011 have filed these revision applications against the judgment dated 22.01.2011 passed by Shri Nageshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr. Appeal Nos. 28 and 32 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Garhwa in G.R. No. 1113/2009 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 259/2009, holding the petitioners guilty for the offences under sections 25 (1-b), a and 26/35 of the Arms Act and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I for two years for the offence under section 25 (1-b), a of the Arms Act and R.I for six months for the offence under section 26/35 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Period already undergone in custody during trial was ordered to be set off.

¶7

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the prosecution has not formally brought the report of Ballistic Expert and sanction order for the prosecution of the petitioners on record. It was further submitted that the seizure witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, it was prayed that both the revision applications may be allowed and the petitioners may be acquitted of the charges. 4. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P in Cr. Revision No. 105/2011 and

¶8

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P in Cr. Revision No. 211/2011 have

¶9

¶10

appeared on behalf of the State. They conceded that report of the Ballistic Expert and sanction order for prosecution of the petitioners have not been adduced in evidence.

¶11

Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Informant Rajbali Choudhary, Officer-in-charge, Garhwa P.S., alleging therein that on 30.08.2009, on the basis of confidential information, house of the petitioners was raided and on search, one loaded country made pistol was recovered, which was kept beneath the bed, on which petitioners were sleeping and live cartridge was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner Shyamjee Soni.

¶12

Seizure witnesses Kailash Soni (P.W-1) and Sanjay Chaudhary (P.W-2) have stated that nothing was recovered in their presence. The Informant Rajbali Choudhary (P.W-5) has supported the prosecution case and has stated that firearm as alleged was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Members of the raiding party have also supported the prosecution case.

¶13

However, from perusal of the record, it appears that the report of Ballistic Expert has not been formally brought on record to show that the recovered firearm was in working condition. It further appears that the prosecution has not formally adduced the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioners in evidence. It is settled principle of law that in order to secure conviction under section 25(1-b) a and 26/35 of the Arms Act, prosecution has to prove that the recovered firearm was in working condition. Prosecution was also required to bring the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioners on record, in absence of which, conviction under the aforesaid sections of the Arms Act cannot be sustained.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court holding the petitioners guilty under sections 25 (1-b), a and 26/35 of the Arms Act is set aside.

¶15

Both these revision applications are allowed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶16

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶17

Ranjeet/

Amit Baitha v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Baitha v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Kumar Alias Uday Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Sharma Alias Mareya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Oraon And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Rupali Paharin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Azaz Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand