2026:JHHC:21523 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016 -------- Chandan Kumar Tiwari @ Chandan Tiwari, S/o. Shri Hari Prasad, R/o. Steam Colony, Patratu, P.O. & P.S.- Patratu, Dist.- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate : Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P. Judgment C.A.V. On: 30th June, 2026 Pronounced On: 20/07/2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2014 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, whereby and whereunder, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 3533 of 2008 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No. 185 of 2008 dated 15.05.2014 has been upheld modifying the sentence of the petitioner and the petitioner has been directed to undergo R.I. for 2 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act. 2026:JHHC:21523 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision as per written report of the then Officer-in-charge of Patratu Police Station Rakesh Kumar Singh is that on 30.09.2008 at the time of evening patrolling, he got an information of the presence of some armed criminals near Patratu Main road Railway crossing. The informant immediately proceeded to verify the information and no sooner the police arrived near railway crossing, than one Hero-Honda motorcycle rider speedily fled away towards Bhurkunda. He was chased by the police party. However, he could not be apprehended. At the time of running away, one money bag fell from the pocket of motorcycle rider which was seized in presence of Raju Rajvanshi and Tuntun Sao, then one driving licence, one PAN card, one Nokia Mobile set bearing SIM No. 9771577366, two cartridges of 9 M.M. and Rs. 360/- were found inside the purse. It was found that the same belonged in the name of Chandan Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Hari Tiwari, resident of steam colony, Qtr. No. 148A, Type-I, Patratu . Thereafter, the seizure list was prepared at 9:45 P.M. in the presence of two independent witnesses. The informant informed his superior officials and conducted another raid in the house of Chandan Kumar Tiwari around 1:30 A.M. The accused was not found in his house. His house was searched in presence of younger brother of accused namely Vicky Tiwari. Then, one country made pistol loaded with .315 bore cartridge and 11 more cartridges were found kept in a polythene bag and one Tata Indicom mobile set bearing its SIM No. 9204043324 were recovered from the bed of the accused Chandan Kumar Tiwari. Seizure list was prepared in this regard. At 2026:JHHC:21523 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) the time of search, Vicky Tiwary has stated that his father has gone for training at Dhanbad and his elder brother Chandan Tiwari has left the house in the evening and has not returned by now. 4. On the basis of written report of informant, Patratu P.S. Case No. 185 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Sections 25(1- B)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against the above named sole accused. 5. In the course of trial, altogether, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Exhibit- 1: Signature of Md. Irshad Ansari on Seizure list II. Exhibit-1/a: Signature of Raju Rajbanshi on seizure list III. Exhibit-1/b: Signature of Tuntun Sao on seizure list IV. Exhibit-1/c: Seizure list prepared at Patratu Railway Gate V. Exhibit-2: Seizure list prepared at Railway Quarter 148- A Steam Colony VI. Exhibit-3: Sergeant's Major Report VII. Exhibit-4: Written report VIII. Exhibit-4/1: Endorsement on written report IX. Exhibit-5: Formal F.I.R. X. Exhibit-6: Sanction report. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been examined by the defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of respective parties, held the accused (Chandan Kumar Tiwari @ 2026:JHHC:21523 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) Chandan Tiwari) guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act and passed sentence of imprisonment as stated above. 8. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 72/2014 was preferred by the petitioner Chandan Kumar Tiwari @ Chandan Tiwari before the learned Session Court, where the same was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, whereby, the judgment of conviction passed against the accused by the learned Trial Court was upheld with modification in sentence and fine amount awarded to him as stated above. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case commenced prior to the registration of the F.I.R. There is no explanation as why F.I.R. was not registered after recovery of purse allegedly containing two cartridges of 9 m.m. bore. It is further submitted that house of the petitioner was searched in the mid-night without any search warrant. There is no independent witness at the time of search and seizure and the seized materials were also not sealed. No material was seized in the presence and exclusive possession of petitioner. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. was instituted on 01.10.2008 and the F.I.R. reached in the Court after three day, which was not explained by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have overlooked the vital materials from consideration. No copy of seizure list was given to the petitioner. Therefore, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by 2026:JHHC:21523 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is fit to be set aside allowing this revision. Submission on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. There is no reason to take different view from the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court and this revision, being devoid of merit, is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 12. The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error or law calling for any interference or not? 13. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial. PW-1 Md. Irshad Ansari, is the seizure witness, who has identified his signature on the seizure list drawn on 01.10.2008 at 1:30 A.M. He has been declared hostile as he does not support the seizure. PW-2 Raju Rajvanshi is the seizure witness of the first seizure prepared on 30.09.2008 at 9:45 P.M. and his signature on the seizure marked as Ext. 1/a. He has also not supported the seizure of any article in his possession. 2026:JHHC:21523 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) PW-3 Tuntun Sao is also the seizure witness of first seizure and his signature has been marked Ext. 1/b. He has not been declared hostile but he does not support the seizure. PW-4 Tileshwar Bage has stated that he was informed by Officer-in- charge of Patratu P.S. about the alleged information, then he arrived at the railway crossing Patratu. He has further stated that seeing the police party, one of the criminal started fleeing, at that time, purse of one criminal fell, which was seized in presence of two witnesses. There were two live cartridges of 9 m.m., PAN card, driving licence and Rs. 360/- inside the purse and address of petitioner Chandan Tiwari was found mentioned on the driving license. Thereafter, another search was made 1:30 A.M. in the house of Chandan Tiwari, however, Chandan Tiwari was not present in the house, his younger brother Vickey Tiwari was present, who informed the police that his elder brother has left the house and did not return by now. The house was searched, from where, one country made loaded pistol with cartridge of .315 bore and 11 other cartridges of same bore alongwith one Indicom mobile set were recovered. He has proved first seizure list marked Ext. 1/c. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that no Magistrate was informed in the night and also no any search warrant was attempted to get from any Court. He has admitted that seizure articles were not sealed at the place of occurrence. PW-5 Charo Uraon is Hawaldar and member of raiding party and has also supported the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:21523 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) PW-6 Govind Ram is constable. He has stated that no document was prepared at the place of occurrence rather everything was written at the police station. PW-7 Rambali Pandey, Hawaldar, has stated that seizure list was prepared at the railway fatak (crossing). PW-8 Biju Hembrom is also a Hawaldar. He has also supported the occurrence and recovery of two cartridges and a purse containing PAN card and driving license. He has stated that two seizure lists were prepared, first at Railway crossing and second one at the house of the accused. PW-9 Gopal Singh is the Investigating Officer. He took the charge of investigation on 06.05.2009. He has produced a cream color purse, which was containing PAN card & driving license in the name of Chandan Tiwari. There was one identity card of Chandan Tiwari and these four material articles were marked Material Ext.- I, II, III, & IV. One Nokia Mobile set and Tata Indicom mobile and Rs. 360/- have been marked Material Ext.-V, VI, & VII. Two cartridges of 9 m.m., one country made pistol and 11 cartridges have been marked Material Ext. VIII, IX, X & XI. PW-10 Surendra Prasad Sharma is constable and he is the witness of first seizure list. PW-11 Rajeev Kumar is Sergeant Major. He has proved his report, which has been marked Ext.-3. PW-12 Inspector Rakesh Kumar Singh is the informant. He was posted as Officer-in-charge of Patratu P.S. and was on evening patrolling duty, when he arrived at Patratu Railway Station, he got an 2026:JHHC:21523 8 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) information of present of some criminals near Patratu Railway crossing. He arrived there to verify the information, then on person started riding on his motorcycle and he was chased. However, he could not be apprehended. A purse of the criminal fell on the ground, which was picked up by him and on opening, it was found that one driving license, one PAN card, two ammunitions and Rs. 360/- were there and PAN and driving license was issued in the name of present petitioner. He informed the higher official and seized the purse. Thereafter, he conducted another raid at 1:30 A.M. at the given address on driving license in presence of two witnesses. One country made pistol loaded with .315 bore cartridge was found hiding beneath the bed of this petitioner. One mobile set was also recovered from the house. The recovered articles were seized in the presence of two witnesses. He has proved Ext. 2 & 1/c. He has also proved formal F.I.R., endorsement on written report. He has further stated that house of the petitioner is one and half K.M. away from railway crossing. 14. It is evident that the occurrence has happened in two phases. Firstly, on the basis of confidential information that some miscreants had assembled near railway crossing for committing some heinous offence, the police personnel reached at the spot then miscreants started fleeing away. One of the miscreants was driving a motorcycle and from his pocket, a purse fell down, which was seized but that miscreant managed to flee away. It also transpires that when the purse was opened, PAN Card, Driving license, mobile phone, Rs. 360/- in cash and two live cartridges of 9mm bore were recovered. The PAN Card and driving license belonged to the accused Chandan Tiwari, 2026:JHHC:21523 9 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) which were seized and seizure list was prepared. Secondly, on the basis of above seized materials and identity card of the accused, the police reached the house of the present petitioner, where he was not found but is brother Vicky Tiwar was found and on his identification, one country made pistol was recovered from below the bed of the present petitioner. The seizure list was prepared in the presence of independent witness and a copy of same was also provided to Vicky Kumar. The PAN Card, Driving license, mobile phone and cartrridges have also been produced during trial and marked material exhibits. All these facts have been categorically proved by PW- 12 15. The main point of argument by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the seized country made pistol and the live cartridges have neither been seized from the conscious possession of the present petitioner nor the same were sealed at the place of occurrence. Therefore, authenticity of this recovery and seizure list is absolutely doubtful. In this connection, from the evidence witnesses, it appears that the seized pistol and cartridges from the house of the petitioner were not sealed on the spot and seizure list witnesses have also not proved any aforesaid recovery from the house of the appellant. Admittedly, the pistol and cartridges were not recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. The said pistol and cartridges has also not been examined by any competent witness for proving whether it was in working condition rather PW-11 the sergeant major, in his evidence has admitted that both the live cartridges were tested by firing with official pistol. Therefore, he has reported that the cartridges were live. 2026:JHHC:21523 10 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) This witness also admits that he has taken only training for examination of fire arms but has got no expertise in the matter. The very mode of testing firearms cartridges as explained by him cannot be justified as proper testing of the firearm and the cartridges. It also appears that seized firearms and cartridges were not sent for examination by ballistic expert. Admittedly, the seizure list also was not prepared in the presence of the petitioner and there were several persons in the house. Therefore, the alleged recovery cannot be connected with the conscious possession of the petitioner. 16. It is also evident that second phase recovery could not be connected with the petitioner through cogent and reliable evidence regarding loaded firearms and live cartridges allegedly recovered from below the bed of the petitioner, hence, it cannot be categorized as secret contravention by him in the meaning of Section 26 of the Arms Act. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner thereunder also not justified under law. 17. So far as the recovery of two live cartridges alongwith PAN Card, driving license, mobile phone of the petitioner, while the petitioner was fleeing away from the place of occurrence, is concerned, the same has also not been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. It is also evident that the informant has claimed to prepare the seizure list in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Raju Rajvanshi and Tuntun Saw, who have been examined as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively and both have stated in their cross-examination that their signature were taken on the blank paper and the alleged recoveries have not been made in their presence. Both 2026:JHHC:21523 11 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1509 of 2016) the courts blow have committed serious error of law while not considering the evidence of seizure list witness, who were the prime witnesses in this case as allegedly no offence has been committed by the present petitioner, except the recovery of two live cartridges from the purse of the petitioner, which were found fallen on the ground and the live cartridges were not produced before the Court as it was fired by sergeant major and empty cartridges were produced. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is also not sustainable. 18. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act is hereby set aside. 19. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. 20. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 21. It appears that the petitioner is on bail. As such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 22. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 23. Let the trial court records also be sent back to the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 21/07/2026