Delhi District Court
State vs . on 16 May, 2023
Cr. Case No. 5105/2017
FIR No. 04/2017
State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05,
SAKET COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Twinkle Chawla, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 5105/2017
CNR No.-: DLSE020327742017
FIR No. -: 04/2017
Police Station -: Okhla Vihar Metro
Section(s) -: 25 ARMS ACT
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
RAMESH KUMAR DASS
...Accused
1. Name of Complainant :- ASI Bihari Lal Rai
2. Name of Accused Person :- Ramesh Kumar Dass
3. Offence complained of or :- 25 Arms Act
proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY
5. Date of Commission of :- 19.03.2017
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 01.11.2017
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 01.05.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 16.05.2023
9. Final Order :- CONVICTED
Page 1 of 21
Cr. Case No. 5105/2017
FIR No. 04/2017
State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 19.03.2017 at about 2:30 PM at Apollo Metro Station, the Accused, while frisking at the aforesaid metro station was found in possession of one black colour country made pistol and two live cartridges, which were kept in his laptop bag, without any license/permit in contravention of DAD Notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi. Hence, the case of the prosecution is that Accused is guilty of the offence u/s 25 Arms Act.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. FSL result was obtained and sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was accorded. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and challan was presented in the court u/s 25 Arms Act on 01.11.2017. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused was summoned to face trial vide order dated 18.01.2018.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused, charge under section 25 Page 2 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass Arms Act was framed against the Accused on 10.12.2018 for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- ASI Bihari Lal/Complainant PW2 :- Mohd. Kasim PW3 :- SI Ram Briksh Bhagat/IO PW4 :- HC Raj Singh/Recovery witness DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of the Complainant Ex. PW1/B :- Sketch memo of the country made pistol and cartridges Ex. PW1/C :- Seizure memo of pullanda containing the country made pistol and cartridges Ex. PW1/D :- Seizure memo of laptop bag, cheque books, passbooks, diary, metro card and other documents of the Accused Ex. PW1/E :- Site Plan Ex. PW1/F :- Arrest memo Ex. PW1/G :- Personal Search memo Ex. P1 :- Photographs of the seized laptop bag, passbooks, cheque book, diary and other documents Ex. P2 :- Country made pistol Ex. P3 :- Two Live Cartridges DOCUMENTS ADMITTED U/S 294 CRPC BY ACCUSED Ex. A1 :- FIR No. 04/2017 Page 3 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass Ex. A2 :- DD No. 10B dated 19.03.2017, PS Kalkaji Mandir Metro Ex. A3 :- DD No. 12A dated 19.03.2017, PS Kalkaji Mandir Metro Ex. A4 :- DD No. 3A dated 20.03.2017, PS Kalkaji Mandir Metro Ex. A5 :- Arrest Memo of the Accused Ex. A6 :- Personal search memo of the Accused Ex. A7 :- FSL report no. FSL2017/F-2373 dated 27.04.2017.
Ex. A8 :- Permission u/s 39 Arms Act
Ex. A9 :- Superdarinama dated 20.04.2017
Ex. A10 :- Duty Roster of CISF staff members of
19.03.2017
Ex. A11 :- CCTV Footage along with certificate u/s
65B Indian Evidence Act
5. During the course of trial, witnesses W/ASI Manju (Duty officer); Constable Anil Kumar (collected FSL result);
Director, Ballistics, FSL, Rohini; Constable Suraj Bhan Singh (burnt CCTV footage CD); SI/Exe. Rohit Ranjan; Insp. Sanjeev Banarjee; Reserve Insp. Violet Line; Rajkamal, Asst. Commander, CISF and Jitender Mani, DCP, Metro, Delhi were dropped pursuant to statement of the Accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC. Further, at the request of Ld. APP for the State, HC Taruna Kumar, ASI Asha Ram and HC Virender Singh were also dropped from the list of witnesses, as the State did not wish to examine them.
6. PW-1/Complainant/ASI Bihari Lal: He has deposed that on 19.03.2017, he was posted at Jasola, Apollo metro Page 4 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass station as Shift Incharge. His duty was from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm. At about 2:30 pm, Ct. Raj Singh whose duty was at X-Ray machine to check the luggages of the passengers at Apollo Metro Station, informed PW-1 that he had seen image of country made pistol and some cartridges in a black colour bag which was put in the X-ray machine for checking by one passenger whose name was revealed to be Ramesh Kumar Dass. PW-1 checked the alleged black colour bag belonging to aforesaid person i.e., the Accused. One green colour polythene bag was found inside the said bag and said polythene was found containing on country made pistol 12 Bor, and cartridges, for which the Accused could not give any satisfactory reply. PW-1 informed the Station Controller regarding facts of the present case, thereafter he informed PS Okhla Vihar Metro and after sometime ASI Ram Briksh alongwith HC Tarun Kumar reached there. IO/ASI Ram Briksh recorded the statement of PW-1 which is Ex.PW-1/A and thereafter, he requested some passengers to join the proceedings but none of them agreed and left from there. Thereafter, IO prepared sketch of aforesaid country made pistol and cartridges which are Ex. PW-1/B. IO also measured the alleged pistol and cartridges. Thereafter, IO prepared separate pullandas of alleged country made pistol and cartridges and sealed the same with the seal of RB. IO filled FSL form at the spot. IO also checked the alleged black colour laptop bag. The Page 5 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass same was found containing one diary, some passbooks and cheque books of IDBI bank, Bank of Maharastra, Indian Overseas bank and HDFC bank and certain other documents and metro card. IO seized the aforesaid pullanda vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. IO also seized the aforesaid laptop bag along with aforesaid passbooks, cheque book, diary and other document vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/D. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through HC Tarun Kumar. IO prepared site plan Ex. PW-1/E at the instance of PW-1. IO interrogated the Accused. Thereafter, IO arrested the Accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-1/F and Ex. PW-1/G. IO recorded the supplementary statement of PW-1. PW-1 correctly identified the Accused and case property in court that day, same being Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the green polythene in which the country made pistol and cartridges were kept was not seized by the IO. Further, he stated that he did not know the number of persons interrogated by the IO.
7. PW-2/ Station Controller (DMRC)/ Mohd. Kasim has deposed that on 19.03.2017, he was posted as Station Controller (DMRC) at Jasola Apollo Metro Station. His duty hours were from 03.00 PM to 11.00 PM. On that day at about 03.00 PM, Page 6 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass CISF ASI/Bihari Lal Rai and Ct. Raj Singh came to the said station control room with one person namely Ramesh Kumar Dass. The said CISF staff was also carrying raxin laptop bag and one countymade pistol alongwith two live cartridges. Said CISF staff members informed PW2 that the aforesaid raxin bag belongs to Ramesh Kumar Dass and said country made pistol and live cartridges were recovered from the raxin bag while the same was put in X-ray machine for checking. Thereafter, PW2 informed the police from telephone line of station control room. After some time, police staff reached there and the custody of Ramesh Kumar Dass, raxin bag, country made pistol and two live cartridges were handed over by the CISF staff to the police. Police recorded the statement of PW2. Due to lapse of time, PW-2 was unable to identify the Accused and the case property, that day in court. He was cross-examined by the Ld. APP with permission of the Court. Accused did not cross-examine him, despite opportunity.
8. PW-3/SI Ram Briksh Bhagat/IO: He has deposed that on 19.03.2017 he was posted as ASI at Kalkaji Mandir metro. On that day, he was present in the PS and received DD No. 12A regarding the apprehension of Accused alongwith illicit country made pistol and live cartridges. On receipt of aforesaid information, PW3 alongwith HC Tarun Kumar reached Jasola Page 7 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass Apollo metro station Controller Room and met CISL staff member namely ASI Bihari Lal and Ct. Raj Singh. The said CISF staff members handed over the custody of one person namely Ramesh Kumar Dass (Accused present in court that day and correctly identified by witness) and one raxin bag of laptop, countrymade pistol and two live cartridges. The aforesaid raxin bag was of black colour and logo of Reaz Polo was affixed on the same. The CISF staff officials revealed that aforesaid bag belongs to the Accused Ramesh Kumar Dass and while the same was put by him in x-ray machine, the same was detected as containing aforesaid countrymade pistol and live cartridges. Thereafter, PW3 recorded the statement of CISF staff ASI Bihari Lal Rai which is already Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he requested 4-5 metro passengers to join the proceedings but none of them agreed and left from there without disclosing their names and addresses. No written notice was served due to paucity of time. Thereafter, PW3 proceeded with the investigation and prepared sketch of alleged katta and cartridges which is already Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, PW3 prepared separate pullanda of aforesaid katta (countrymade pistol) and live cartridges which were sealed by PW3 with the seal of RB. Thereafter, pullandas were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. PW3 also seized the aforesaid laptop bag which was containing some pass book, cheque book, diary and other documents vide Page 8 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass seizure memo already Ex. PW1/D. Seal after use was handed over to HC Tarun Kumar. Thereafter, PW3 prepared rukka which is Ex. PW3/A and got registered the FIR through HC Tarun Kumar. After registration of FIR, HC Tarun Kumar returned to the spot. Thereafter, PW3 completed the aforesaid documents already prepared before the registration of FIR by filling details of FIR. Thereafter, PW3 prepared site plan Ex. PW3/B at the instance of ASI Bihari Lal Rai. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted by PW3 vide memo already Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G. Thereafter, the Accused alongwith case property were taken to the PS. During investigation, PW3 obtained the relevant portion of CCTV footage in a CD alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act from CISF control room, Metro Bhawan. During investigation, PW3 sent the aforesaid seized weapon and cartridges to the FSL, Rohini and after their examination collected the report from FSL. During investigation, PW3 obtained necessary permission u/s 39 Arms Act from the concerned DCP. During investigation, PW3 recorded statement of all the relevant witnesses u/s 161 CrPC at the relevant points of time. After completion of investigation, PW3 prepared charge sheet and submitted the same before concerned magistrate. PW-3 was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the Accused, in which he stated that he had received the information qua DD No. 12A at 3:15 pm and Page 9 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass he reached the spot within 15/20 minutes. Further, that the site plan was prepared at 5:30 pm. He denied the suggestion that the recovery was planted on the Accused.
9. PW-4/HC Raj Singh: has deposed on the same lines as PW-1, which is not being reiterated for sake of brevity. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Accused, in which he stated that the incident took place around 2:30 pm. However, he admitted that he did not remember the exact sequence of events which transpired once the IO came; and that no written notice was served on the public persons by the IO to join the proceedings. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of Accused was recorded without oath on 19.11.2022 under Section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case; and that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bag and did not have any idea as to how the countrymade pistol and cartridges were found in the said bag. He further stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments. Page 10 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017
State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the Accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the pistol and cartridges from the Accused, since no independent witnesses were examined. Further, in any case, even if recovery has been proved, it has not been shown how the said possession was conscious as the Accused did not know the contents of his bag. Further, he has also submitted that there are several contradictions in the case of the prosecution. Hence, he has submitted that the Accused is to be acquitted of the offence u/s 25 Arms Act.
14. The Accused has been charged for the offence under section 25 Arms Act. For offence under section 25 Arms Act, the Page 11 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. That the Accused has in his possession or carries at any place;
ii. fire arm or animation, covered under Arms Act; iii. such possession is without any license/permit;
and
iv. such possession is conscious.
15. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the Accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the Accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
16. The ballistics report, i.e., Ex. A-7, clearly reflects that the countrymade pistol, 12 bore and the 12 bore cartridges are fire arm/ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. The said report was admitted by the Accused in statement u/s 294 CrPC and hence the expert witness was not summoned for cross-examination. Further, no license/permit has been produced by the Accused during trial. Accordingly, the second and third ingredient as set out above is proved.
Page 12 of 21Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017
17. PW-4 and PW-1 are the main witnesses to recovery. PW-4 has stated that while he was on duty on the x-ray machine to check the luggage of passengers at the Apollo metro station, on 19.03.2017, he found one laptop bag which was put in the x-ray machine, which showed images of one countrymade pistol and two live cartridges. Upon checking the said bag, one green colour polythene was found inside the bag, which contained the countrymade pistol and live cartridges. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that he had informed the shift in charge of the incidence at 02.30 PM. PW-1 has also deposed that on 02.30 PM on 19.03.2017, PW-4 had brought the laptop bag, containing the countrymade pistol, cartridges to him alongwith the Accused. Ex. A10, which is the duty chart of DMRC, Okhla Violet Line 2, of 19.03.2017, reflects that ASI Biharilal/PW-1 was shift in charge on the said date in the B shift and Ct. Raj Singh/PW-4 was on X- BIS/DFMD duty in the B shift. Further, their reporting on duty at 02.00 PM and exit at 10.00 PM is also set out in the duty deployment sheet, on the said date. Hence, the fact that PW-1 and PW-4 were present at the spot of incident on the day of incident at the time of incident is proved. While, Ld. Counsel for the Accused has also raised a question on the recovery of the countrymade pistol and cartridges from the laptop bag of the Accused on the grounds of there being no public witness to the recovery, perusal Page 13 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass of the trial record shows that the Accused has never denied the fact that he was present at the Apollo Metro Station at about 02.30 PM on 19.03.2017 or that the bag from which the countrymade pistol and cartridges were recovered, were not his. In fact, he has got the other documents that were found in the laptop bag, i.e., his passbooks/ other documents released on superdari during trial. Further, the CCTV footage of the scene of recovery, from 02.25 PM to 02.40 PM on 19.03.2017, which is duly supported by certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act shows that the Accused had kept his laptop bag for screening and thereafter he was stopped by the CISF officials at the time of screening itself, as the countrymade pistol and two cartridges were found in his bag during screening. PW1, PW2 and PW4 have deposed consistently as to the recovery of the countrymade pistol and two cartridges, in a green colour polythene bag from the laptop bag belonging to the Accused, which was put for screening by the Accused at the metro station. It may also be highlighted that in the CCTV footage, it is visible that the Accused was present all the time when the bag was being searched by PW4, which is also evident of the fact that the said bag belonged to the Accused, lest he would not have remained continuously standing during that time at the spot. PW-1 and PW- 4 have also identified the countrymade pistol, live cartridges and the Accused in court during their testimony. While PW-2 has not Page 14 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass identified the Accused stating that due to lapse of time, he cannot recall the face of the Accused and the details of the property, he has been consistent in deposing that he had informed the police from the telephone line of the station control room after the CISF staff had brought a raxin laptop bag, countrymade pistol, two live cartridges and one person to him at about 03.00 PM on 19.03.2017. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 has been largely consistent and hence the absence of identification by PW-2 cannot be considered as lethal to the case of the prosecution. It is also to be seen that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence, which is the deciding factor. In Sheelam Remesh & Anr. v. State of A.P. reported in JT 1999 (8) S.C. 537, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"Courts are concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on sole evidence of a witness, if it inspires confidence".
18. Further, in the statement u/s 313 CrPC, the Accused has not denied the fact that he was not present at the metro station or that the said countrymade pistol and cartridges were not found in his laptop bag. He has in fact stated that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bag and did not know how the said countrymade pistol and cartridges were found in his bag. What is Page 15 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass implicit in this statement is the admission of recovery of the said countrymade pistol and cartridges from the Accused.
19. Further, no material inconsistency or rebuttal has come to surface in the cross examination of the aforesaid recovery witnesses. Further, it is common knowledge that at the security check area of the metro station, only those persons travelling besides the staff posted are available. Travellers at the metro station cannot be expected to join the investigation at the drop of hat as they are in haste to catch the metro. In light of these facts and circumstances, statement of the Accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC and the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4, the non-joining of other public witnesses, does not dilute the veracity of the prosecution. No reason has been imputed to the CISF officials, as to why they would make false allegations against the Accused. Moreover, it is well settled law that the testimonies of police officials should not always be looked with suspicion when they have otherwise proved the prosecution story by deposing consistently and corroborating each other on material points. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State vs. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652, has observed as under:-
"We feel that it is an archaic notion that action of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such Page 16 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-
independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the action and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court can not start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the Accused it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the Accused through cross examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case.
If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court would certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect Page 17 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions".
20. Thus, the admission of facts made by the Accused in his statement as regards his presence at the security check area, the checking of his bag and seizure of country made pistol and live cartridges thereof can also be safely called in aid in support of prosecution case since those facts have been established as constituting chain of circumstances by the prosecution. Accordingly, the oral evidence read with documentary evidence and CCTV footage brought on record proves the complete chain of recovery of case property from the possession of Accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
21. The main contention of the Accused is that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bag and did not know how the countrymade pistol and cartridges were found in the bag.
22. It is to be seen that for attracting the offence u/s 25 Arms Act, the possession has to be conscious (Reliance placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunwantlal vs. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 1756). In the present case, the prosecution has proved that country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from the laptop bag of the Accused which he was carrying at the metro station, which is the sufficient onus to be Page 18 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017 State v. Ramesh Kumar Dass discharged by the prosecution. The fact that the Accused was not aware about the case property lying in his bag is specifically in the knowledge of the Accused, and as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden falls upon the Accused to prove the said circumstances. Further, the size of the pistol in the present case, i.e., of 10.12 inches, in length as per the sketch memo, Ex. PW1/B, is considerable enough to presume the knowledge of the Accused as to the same being present in the bag. Further, a person is ordinarily supposed to be in knowledge of the contents of his bag, which he is carrying on his body. In the present case, no action has been taken by the Accused even after the said recovery from his bag, such as lodging a complaint or making an effort to find the person who may have planted this weapon on him. Further, the Accused has not set out any circumstance, which could show that he has been framed in the present case. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurjit Singh Sandhu vs. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P. (CRL) 2193/2021 & CRL.M.A. 2352/2022, wherein it was observed as follows:
"This Court finds considerable force in the contention of Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State, that the box containing 50 cartridges weighing around 200 grams cannot be inadvertently kept in the bag."Page 19 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017
23. Accordingly, since the Accused has been unable to account for any reason/circumstance in his defence, which could imply that he had no knowledge, the possession appears to be conscious. No licence/permit for the possession of the country made pistol/live cartridges has been brought on record by the Accused.
24. Further, Sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act, i.e., Ex. A- 8, has also been admitted by the Accused in his statement u/s 294 CrPC and stands proved. The perusal of the sanction shows that it has accorded by one Sh. Jitendra Mali, DCP, Metro after perusing the chargesheet and annexed documents. No material challenge has been made by the Accused to deny its legality.
25. Hence, the prosecution has brought formiddable evidence on record to establish that Accused was found in conscious possession of one country made pistol/arm and two live ammunitions without holding any valid license in that regard, in contravention of section 3 of the Arms Act. The Accused has failed to poke holes in the case of the prosecution/set up his defence. The case of the prosecution has been established beyond all reasonable doubt the ingredients of section 25 (1B) (a) against the Accused. Resultantly Accused Ramesh Kumar Dass is convicted of the offence punishable u/s 25 (1B) (a) Arms Act. Page 20 of 21 Cr. Case No. 5105/2017 FIR No. 04/2017
26. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the Accused.
Announced in open court on 16.05.2023 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 21 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
(TWINKLE CHAWLA) MM-05, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 16.05.2023 Page 21 of 21