Dismissed

Nanhak Paswan @ Hari Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC13 Jun 2013CR. REV./553/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged conviction for offences under Arms Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act upheld in appeal, submitting non-examination of seizure list witness impaired recovery evidence. Court held material exhibits established recovery.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

What the court decided

Nanhak Paswan @ Hari Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.553 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Nanhak Paswan @ Hari Paswan, son of Shri Durga Paswan, resident of village- Mahadipur (Dhangartoli), P.S.- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER 4 13-06-2013 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶3

Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court dated 11^th December 2012 passed in G.R. NO. 1267 of 2011, T.R. No. 2542 of 2012 whereunder he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a), 26 of the Arms and under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in the event of default in payment to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 26 of the Arms Act, the petitioner has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the petitioner has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month. The sentences, however, has been directed to run concurrently.

¶4

The petitioner has been in custody since 2^nd October 2011, in appreciation of such custody, the trial court has also directed to set off the period already undergone by the

¶5

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.553 of 2013 (4) dt.13-06-2013

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

petitioner as an under trial prisoner. The aforesaid judgment has been affirmed in appeal. The appellate court has reduced the period of sentence from three years to two years simple imprisonment under Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and with the aforesaid modification in sentence the appeal has been dismissed.

¶8

The present revision is filed assailing the aforesaid two judgments on the ground that seizure list witnesses have not been examined to support the story of recovery of 9mm pistol, additional magazine, fired bullets, misfired bullets and 64 live cartridges of 9 mm from the possession of the petitioner by the police party on 2^nd October 2011 at about 5:30 P.M. in village Raghunathpur, P.S.-Chiraiya, District- East Champaran.

¶9

To support the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses who chased the petitioner and after overpowering him, recovered 9 mm pistol, additional magazine, fired/misfired bullets, 64 live cartridges of 9 mm from him vide seizure list (Ext.-2). In support of the prosecution case, besides the evidence of police party, the prosecution also relied on documentary evidence as also material exhibits to support the recovery from the possession of the petitioner. The trial court has considered the evidence of five prosecution witnesses as also the documentary evidence and having considered the submissions of both the parties, formulated questions at page 5 and 6 of the judgment which has been answered in the subsequent pages of the judgment. With reference to the ocular, documentary and material exhibits on record, having analysed the prosecution evidence, the trial court has found that the charge levelled against the petitioner under section 25(1-

¶10

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.553 of 2013 (4) dt.13-06-2013

¶11

3 / 3

¶12

B)(a),26 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has been found proved. The aforesaid finding has been affirmed by the appellate court also but the appellate court has chosen to reduce the sentences from three years to two years simple imprisonment.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure of the prosecution to examine the seizure list witness has shaken the prosecution evidence about the recovery of 9 mm pistol, 64 live cartridges of 9 mm including additional magazine and fired bullets from the petitioner appear to be misconceived as seizure of arms and cartridges etc. is established by production of material exhibits in the court and failure to examine the seizure list witnesses, in my opinion has not shaken the prosecution case.

¶14

I do not find any merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

(V.N. Sinha, J)

¶16

Sujit/-

Nanhak Paswan @ Hari Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Nanhak Paswan @ Hari Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar @ Sheru Vs The State Of Bihar

Guddu Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar

Sanjay Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar

Mohamad Ladle @ Pravez Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar