2026:JHHC:21347 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1030 of 2017 ------ Raj Kumar Ganjhu @ Bichchhua @ Bichun, Son of Jageshwar Ganjhu, Resident of Chedra, P.O. & P.S.-Balumath, Dist.-Latehar … .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ---------- Dated: 20th July, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 19th May, 2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2016 passed in Keredari P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4934 of 2009 by Learned J.M., 1ST Class, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that on 22.12.2009, at about 11:00 AM, the informant (Officer-in-charge of Keredari Police Station) received a secret information that 2026:JHHC:21347 Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1030 of 2017 2 accused persons of Keredari P.S. Case No. 84 of 2009 were roaming around in the Salga Jungle. The informant along with police personnel proceeded to verify and after reaching there, it is found that a person was holding a gun on his shoulders near a Mahuwa Tree. The police Personnel managed to apprehend that person and recovered a muzzle loading gun from his possession and a mobile phone who revealed his name as Raj Kumar Ganjhu (present appellant), member of Sub-Zonal Commander of Extremist JPC Organization and failed to produce any valid legal documents or authority regarding the gun and mobile recovered from his possession. On the basis of the written report of Informant, Keredari P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of the CLA, Act against the present petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance was taken. The charges under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the CLA Act were framed and read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence. 5. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. However, the petitioner pleaded 2026:JHHC:21347 Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1030 of 2017 3 innocence and stated that he was arrested from Ramgarh and nothing was recovered from his possession. 6. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty as sated above which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Submissions on behalf of petitioner: - 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was apprehended from Salga Forest on secret information and from his possession, gun and mobile phone were recovered but no independent persons were there during seizure of recovered items and the same was not produced before the Court and the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of CLA Act rather has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years out of which the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 1 year 5 months. Therefore, sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. Per contra, Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits. 2026:JHHC:21347 Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1030 of 2017 4 So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 1 year 5 months, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice. Analysis, reasons and decision: 9. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 10. It appears from the evaluation of testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence as exhibited in this case that the present petitioner was apprehended on a secret information received by the Informant and from his possession, a Muzzle loading Gun was recovered without having any documents or authority with respect to recovered item and since the learned counsel for the petitioner has also confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court as stated above is hereby affirmed. 11. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 1 year 5 months out of 2 years as awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and suffered long agony of the trial, no 2026:JHHC:21347 Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1030 of 2017 5 useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him. 13. In result, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 14. Petitioner is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 20.07.2026 Basant/ Uploaded On: 21/07/2026