Acquittal in Arms Act cases where identification is doubtful and recovery is not from exclusive possession.

The petitioner was accused in Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 27 of 2008 following a police raid on 20.03.2008.

The informant (P.W.3) alleged that while cordoning the petitioner’s house to arrest a co-accused, the petitioner fled, and a country-made revolver fell from his waist.

The Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate-1st Class) convicted the petitioner on 30.01.2014 under Sections 25(1-b)a and 26(i) of the Arms Act, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

This conviction was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Cr. Appeal No. 23/2014 on 20.03.2025.

The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings via this criminal revision, citing material irregularities in identification and seizure procedures.

1. Whether the identification of the petitioner by the informant was legally sustainable given their lack of prior acquaintance and the circumstances of the raid.

2. Whether the seizure list was prepared in accordance with law, and whether the firearm could be deemed to be in the "possession" of the petitioner.

3. Whether the failure of the trial court to put accurate and relevant questions to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. vitiated the trial.

The Court applied the principles of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which allow interference in concurrent findings if there is a "material irregularity, illegality, or impropriety" that results in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court scrutinized the requirements of the Arms Act regarding "possession" and the procedural mandates of Section 313 Cr.P.C., which require the court to put the actual evidence appearing against the accused to him to allow for an explanation.

The High Court found several "glaring flaws" that the lower courts overlooked. First, the informant (P.W.3) admitted in cross-examination that he did not know the petitioner before the occurrence, making his pinpoint identification of a fleeing man in the early morning highly improbable.

P.W.4 (part of the raid team) contradicted the informant by stating he did not see the revolver fall from the petitioner but found it lying in an alley.

The seizure list was found to be unreliable as it was prepared 300 yards away at the Mukhiya’s house rather than at the spot, and no family members were witnesses despite their presence.

The Court held that the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination was conducted in a "casual manner"; the trial court asked the petitioner to respond to a claim of direct recovery from his person—a claim that was never part of the prosecution’s evidence—thereby depriving him of his right to a proper defense.

The Court allowed the revision, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, acquitted the petitioner, and ordered the petitioner to be released from jail custody forthwith.