2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND ATRANCHI Cr. Revision No. 336 of 2017 --------- Jai Ganesh Lohra, S/o-Sri Mohan Lohra, Resident of village-college Road, Bundu, P.O. & P.S.-Bundu, District-Ranchi ……Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----------- CAV On 04.08.2026 Pronounced on 31/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for State. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2017 passed by learned A.J.C.-VIII, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.95 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate court has upheld and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under sections 25(1-B)a/26 of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months for the offence under section 17 of C.L.A. Act and R.I. for 2 years along with fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each for the offences under sections 25(1-B)a/26 of Arms Act. 2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 Factual Matrix:- Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on the basis of confidential information and during patrolling duty, the informant S.I. Kameshwar Prasad Yadav along with others police personnels were engaged in checking of the vehicle at Nawadih More. It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at about 19:30 hours, the informant noticed that one person riding on a Honda Shine motorcycle bearing Reg. No.JH-01AF-6374 under suspicious circumstance, the police party attempted to apprehend the said person but he accelerated the vehicle and on chase, he was apprehended. The apprehended person disclosed his name as Jai Ganesh Lohra(petitioner) and on his personal search, a country made pistol loaded with .315 bore cartridge, some naxal literatures and books kept under the seat of the motorcycle were recovered. Accordingly, the seizure list was prepared. FIR was registered for the offence under section 17 of C.L.A Act and sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of Arms Act. The apprehended accused was formally arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences against the above named accused. 4. The accused denied from the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 5. In course of trial altogether 5 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-S.I. Kameshwar Prasad Yadav (informant) P.W.2-Anil Kumar Sharma (police) P.W.3-Lal Bahadur Sashtri (Police) P.W.4-Nagendra Prasad (I.O.) P.W.5-Ravindra Prasad (Sergeant Major) 6. Apart from the oral testimony, following documentary evidence have been adduced by the prosecution i.e. Ext.1-Self-Statement of the informant Ext.2-Seizure list Ext.3-Endorsement on the self-statement of the informant Ext.4 –Formal FIR Ext.5-Confessional Statement of accused Ext.6-Expert report Ext.7-Sanction order 7. On the other hand, in the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has pleaded his innocence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 8. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record arrived at conclusion about guilt of the appellant for the offences under sections 25(1-B)a/26 of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and sentenced him and subsequently, the appellant filed a criminal appeal, which was also dismissed on merits and upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant, which has been assailed in this revision. 2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 Submission on behalf of Petitioner:- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seizure list witnesses were not examined in this case as well as seized materials were also not produced during trial, which has occasioned failure of justice. As such, the judgment passed by learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court are absolutely perverse and beyond the weight of evidence and based on non-consideration and non- examination of material witnesses, which are liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. In the alternative, it is argued that the petitioner has remained in custody for 6 months during trial and post conviction. The occurrence is of the year, 2011 as such 1 ½ decades has been passed since the occurrence of alleged crime. The petitioner has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Admittedly, it was the first offence of the petitioner and there was no previous conviction or any criminal antecedent. He has simply been branded as a member of Naxlite Association without any evidence. Therefore, the petitioner deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. As such imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this particular case would meet ends of justice. Submission on behalf of State 2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court on merits but fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the petitioner and no criminal antecedent has been created against him, which is also apparent from the judgment passed by learned trial court. There are concrete findings about the guilt of the petitioner, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference in this revision, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. 12. It appears that the learned trial court has recorded very objective findings that a country made pistol along with naxal literatures were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The country made pistol along with loaded cartridges were also seized and examined by Sargent Major (P.W.5) found to be in working condition and cartridge was also live for which no license was produced by the accused/petitioner and no valid explanation has been offered for possession of illegal arm. It was also observed that mere non- examination of the seizure list witnesses does not shake the very credibility of the prosecution case. It further appears that the signature 2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 of seizure list witnesses has been proved by the Investigating Officer of this case (P.W.4). The books and naxals literatures, which were found under the seat of the motorcycle are also mentioned in Ext.2, the seizure list. 13. Learned appellate court has also placing reliance upon the reported judgment in Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1996 SC 2943), wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that “witnesses being police officers does not by itself create a doubt about their credibility, if non-examination of Panch witnesses is explained satisfactorily discarded the plea of the appellant about non-examination of the seizure list witnesses and seizure list proved by the police officer (I.O.).” 14. In my considered view, the reasons recorded by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, while convicting and sentencing the petitioner, suffers from no serious error of law, calling for any interference in this revision. 15. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, keeping in view of the fact that it was the first offence of the petitioner and he has no criminal background. The petitioner has remained in custody for 6 months during trial and post-conviction. The petitioner was granted bail on 19.06.2017 in this revision, since then, no adverse conduct of the petitioner has been brought on record by the prosecution. As such, the imprisonment 2026:JHHC:26331 Cr. Revision No.336 of 2017 already undergone i.e. 6 months by the petitioner during trial of the case appears to be sufficient punishment to meet the justice in this case. 16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under sections 25(1-B)a/26 of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act is hereby upheld but the sentence of the petitioner awarded for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to imprisonment already undergone by him. 17. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 19. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date:- 31/08 /2026 Pappu/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 01/09 /2026