2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1178 of 2005 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2005 and Order of sentence dated 12.08.2005, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.III), Godda in Sessions Case No.45 of 2004/37 of 2004] …… Baban Yadav son of Late Bala Yadav, resident of village – Ramjanipur, P.S. – Kahalgaon, District – Bhagalpur (Bihar) … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent …… For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… JUDGMENT Order No.11/Dated- 09.04.2026 1. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2005 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2005 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.III), Godda in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004/37 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been 2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 2 held guilty for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(2) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act with default stipulation. However, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as emerging from the self-statement of the informant, S.I. Binod Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Mahagama P.S. (P.W.8), recorded on 26.01.2004 at about 22:30 hours, is that upon receipt of secret information regarding the presence of a notorious criminal, namely Baban Yadav (appellant), at his in-laws’ residence situated at Urja Nagar, a raiding party was constituted making station diary entry. During the course of the raid at Quarter No. NHS 212/424, one man attempted to flee by scaling the boundary wall but was apprehended by the police personnel. On interrogation, he disclosed his identity as Baban Yadav. A search was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses led to recovery of a country-made pistol loaded with a live cartridge (.303 bore), concealed 2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 3 beneath his waist. The accused failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation or valid document for possession of the said arm, whereupon a seizure list was duly prepared in accordance with law. On the basis of above information, Mahagama P.S. Case No. 10 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(2) of the Arms Act against the accused person. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a/26 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004/37 of 2004 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 74 of 2004) was registered. Charges were framed against the accused appellant under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(2) of the Arms Act which was read over and explained to him, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether eleven witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence 2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 4 has been adduced by the defence. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has totally denied the prosecution story claiming that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused and he has been falsely implicated in this case on a fake recovery. 7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act is absolutely illegal and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case which has been misinterpreted by the concerned Trial Court. The appellant has also been held guilty for the offence under Section 25(1- B)a of the Arms Act for possession of country made pistol loaded with cartridge for which two years R.I. has been imposed, out of which the appellant has already undergone one year eight months in custody during investigation and trial of the case. In the above premises, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice in this case. It is also submitted that it was first offence of the 2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 5 appellant, therefore, impugned judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court requires to be interfered with and this appeal may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions but fairly admits that as per materials available on record and the averments of F.I.R., the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act is not established in this case. So far as quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 25 (1- B)(a) of the Arms Act is concerned, appropriate punishment has been awarded to the appellant. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed. 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 11. So far as conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act is concerned, for better appreciation, the provision is extracted hereunder :- "[26. Secret contraventions.―(1) Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of section 3, 4, 10 or 12 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other 2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 6 means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and also with fine. (2) Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of section 5, 6, 7 or 11 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years and also with fine. (3) Whoever on any search being made under section 22 conceals or attempts to conceal any arms or ammunition, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine." 12. In the instant case, there is no contravention of Sections 5, 6 and 7 or 11 of the Arms Act, moreover, the appellant was apprehended while fleeing away and it is alleged that one country made pistol fell from his waist. Therefore, it does not confirm to the requirements of Section 26 of the Arms Act to attract secret contravention. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act is, hereby, set aside. 13. So far as conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is concerned, it is proved beyond doubt that he was found in possession of country 2026:JHHC:10744 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1178 of 2005 Page | 7 made pistol loaded with one cartridge and the maximum sentence of two years as prevailing at that time was awarded to him, out of which the appellant has already undergone more than one and half years sentence during trial. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act is set aside. So far as sentence awarded to him for the offence under Section 25 (1-B)a of the Arms Act is concerned, it is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone instead of the substantive sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above. 15. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and the sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 09/04/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 16/04/2026