Credible police testimony can prove arms recovery despite hostile independent seizure witnesses.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act after a country-made pistol and a live .303 cartridge were allegedly recovered from him.

The Trial Court sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine; on appeal, the sentence was reduced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence

The petitioner challenged the conviction in revision, arguing that no independent witness supported the alleged seizure.

He also sought reduction of his sentence, relying on the period already served, the time elapsed since the occurrence, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court separately condoned a 215-day delay in filing the revision.

1. Whether the concurrent finding of guilt under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act warranted interference where the independent seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case

2. Whether the substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the circumstances of the case

3. Whether the 215-day delay in filing the revision should be condoned

Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act governs the offence for which the petitioner was convicted.

In revision, the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction and does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence; interference is warranted where there is a patent illegality, manifest perversity, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice, as explained in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452.

Police evidence is not inherently unreliable merely because it is unsupported by independent witnesses; credible testimony of police officials may be relied upon, as stated in Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 5 SCC 646.

The Court also considered the delay-condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Court found that the informant and other members of the police raiding party consistently testified to the recovery and seizure, while the independent witnesses either turned hostile or did not support the prosecution.

The seizure-list witness proved his signature but resiled from supporting the seizure.

The Court held that this did not, by itself, undermine the prosecution case, and noted that the weapon had been examined and found operational.

Finding no basis to disturb the concurrent factual findings, the Court upheld the conviction.

It nevertheless considered that the occurrence dated from 2008, the petitioner had spent eight months and eighteen days in custody, had no criminal antecedents, and had endured prolonged criminal proceedings; it concluded that the period already served would meet the ends of justice.

It upheld the conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act but modified the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

The fine of Rs. 1,000 and the default clause remained unchanged; the petitioner was directed to pay the fine, if unpaid, within ten weeks.

The revision was partly allowed, and the petitioner was discharged from his bail bonds.