2026:JHHC:16871 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1031 of 2016 ------ 1. Mahesh Singh, son of Chotu Singh. 2. Kush Kumar Sahu, son of Dashrathi Sahu. Both petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Village – Lachragarh, P.O. and P.S. – Kolebira, District – Simdega. 3. Asej Dang @ Jhamru @ Tutaij @ Samir, son of Late Prasan Dang, resident of Village – Pogloya, P.O. and P.S. – Kolebira, District – Simdega. .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ------ JUDGMENT Dated- 09.06.2026 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014 and 34 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simdega in G.R. No. 358 of 2012 / T.R. No. 94 of 2014, whereby the learned trial court has found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a / 26 / 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment 2026:JHHC:16871 for two years and six months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act. The petitioner were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 26(i) and 35 of the Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 12.08.2012, the informant namely, S.I. Sriniwas Kumar, the then Officer-in-Charge, Kolebira P.S. has received one secret information that Ases Dang @ Lalu @ Jhamra @ Sameer @ Tufaij, an active member of PLFI, an unlawful organization, for recruiting new members for the said organization is alluring the young boys of nearby village, so in order to verify the said information, as per direction of the senior police officials, under the leadership of Sri Binod Kumar Gupta, S.D.P.O., Simdega, one police team was constituted and along with police team on dated 12.08.2012 at about 22.30 hours, he proceeded from the Police Station and on dated 13.08.2012 at about 3:30 hours along with two local independent witnesses of Village-Pogloya, the police party was trying to surround the house of said Ases Dang, but noticing the presence of police party, three miscreants coming out from that house tried to flee away, but the police party chased and apprehended all the three miscreants, who on inquiry disclosed their names to be Ases Dang, Kush Kumar Sahu and Mahesh 2026:JHHC:16871 Singh and thereafter all three miscreants were searched by the police party in presence of independent witnesses, then from the possession of Ases Dang, one country made loaded pistol along with one .315 live bullet and two Mobile phones were recovered and from the possession of Kush Kumar Sahu, two .315 live cartridges and one Mobile phone was recovered and from the possession of Mahesh Singh, two .315 live bullets were recovered and the same were duly seized by preparing one seizure list. 4. 4. On the basis of self-statement of informant, Kolebira P.S. Case No. 67/2012 dated 13.08.2012 under Section 25(1-b)A, 26 / 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act was registered. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the above-named petitioners for the offence under Section 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 / 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence and vide order dated 16,05.2013, charges were framed against all the three petitioners. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, several documentary evidences were also adduced. 7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded. The case of defence is of false implication. 2026:JHHC:16871 8. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found and held the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a, 26 / 35 of the Arms Act and judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed against them, as stated above. 9. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2014 and 35/2014 before the learned appellate court, but the same has been dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners without touching the merits of the judgment confined himself towards quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a, 26 / 35 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that from the possession of petitioner no. 1, two live cartridges, from the possession of petitioner no. 2, two live cartridges were recovered and from the possession of petitioner no. 3, one country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge was recovered and petitioner no. 1 has remained in custody about 02 months, petitioner no. 2 has remained in custody for about 04 months and petitioner no. 3 has remained in custody for about 09 months. More than 13 years have been elapsed from the date of alleged occurrence. Therefore, imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners would meet the ends of justice in this case, instead of undergoing further 2026:JHHC:16871 imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court. Therefore, this revision may be disposed of with alternation in sentence. 11. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the overall materials and passed the reasoned judgment, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. This revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. 13. It appears that the case is very old one. There is no previous conviction of the petitioners. It is their first offence. It further appears that from the possession of petitioner no. 1, two live cartridges, from the possession of petitioner no. 2, two live cartridges were recovered and from the possession of petitioner no. 3, one country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge was recovered. At the prevailing time, the petitioners have sustained substantial period of sentence before amendment of Act in the year 2019 in respect of modification in quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 25(1-B) a of the Arms Act. 14. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioners is upheld, but the sentence passed by the learned trial court is reduced to 2026:JHHC:16871 imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners during trial of the case. 15. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence, as stated above. 16. Petitioners are on bail. As such, they shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 17. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 09/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 15/06/2026