Tanbir Mian And Another vs State Of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajesh Kumar is present.

Learned counsel for the opposite party Mrs. Niki Sinha and Mr. Md. Hatim are also present.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing his argument has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 25(1-B)a,

26,35 of the Arms Act. He further submits that in the present case, the prosecution sanction has not been properly proved as only the signature on the

sanction letter has been proved and marked as exhibit. He further submits that all the witnesses are interested witnesses who were forming part of the

raiding party except one of the seizure list witness who was turned hostile as he has stated that his thumb impression was taken on 25.01.2000 at the

police station.

Learned counsel has also submitted that the seized articles were not sealed. Learned counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances

of this case, the petitioners are entitled for benefit of doubt. Learned counsel has also submitted that there has been recovery of one country made

pistol along with one cartridge from the possession of Tanbir Mian. So far as others are concerned, there was recovery but does not dispute that the

fact that they have been charged on account of allegation of joint possession. Learned counsel has also submitted that considering the facts and

circumstances of this case, the conviction of the petitioner may be confined to the period already undergone by them in custody. But he also does not

dispute that they have not been sentenced as prescribed under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act. Learned counsel submits that the matter may be

posted on 02.12.2020 for further argument.

Considering the submissions made, the matter is adjourned and is directed to be posted on 02.12.2020 for 'Final Disposal'.

Let these cases be treated as part heard.