Pradip Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2017

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pradip Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2017

Bench: Anant Bijay Singh

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
           Crl. Appeal (SJ) No. 414 of 2017
  Pradip Pandey                       .....              Appellant(s)
                      With
           Crl. Appeal (SJ) No.426 of 2017
  Kunal Kumar Rajak                   ...                Appellant(s)
                      With
           Crl. Appeal (SJ) No.434 of 2017
  Robin Karmakar                      ...                Appellant(s)
                            Versus
  The State of Jharkhand.                   ....           Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

  For the Appellant(s)         :       Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate
                                       Mr. C. Mukherjee, Advocate.
  For the State              :         APP
                            -----
     08/ Dated 14.11.2017.
          All the appellants have faced the trial in S. T. No.79 of 2011 in
  the Court of Sri Shatrunjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XI,
  East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, who under judgment dated 27.01.2017 has
  held all the appellants guilty under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a & 3 and
  26(2) of the Arms Act read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and under
  Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and further vide order
  dated 31.01.2017, all the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 6
  years and a fine of RS.10,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-A)/35
  of the Arms Act; RI for 3 years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence
  punishable under Section 25(1-B)/35 of the Arms Act; RI for 6 years and a
  fine of RS.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 26(2)/35 of
  the Arms Act and RI for 6 months for the offence under Section 17 (1) of
  the C.L.A. Act and in default of payment of each fine, the convicts shall
  undergo S.I. of one month.
           It appears that these appeals were admitted for hearing on
  18.03.2017

and LCR was called for.

After receipt of LCRs, Interlocutory applications for suspension of sentence has been pressed.

Vide order dated 30.10.2017, it appears that in view of Exhibit- 4, the FSL report, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned APP are directed to address this Court about the application of provisions of Sections 293 and 294 of the Cr.P.C., as admittedly the Ballistic Report has not been examined and the matter was adjourned to be listed on 10.11.2017 and thereafter the matter was listed for today.

Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon in a decision rendered in the case of Vijay Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), reported in [2005(2) JCR 369 (Jhr)].

It was submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is not having signature of the Director.

-2-

Counsel for the appellants further submits that Ext.4 which is report of the ballistic expert signed by the Senior Scientific Officer, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand, Ranchi and counter-signed by the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Learned counsel for the State is directed to make his statements on the question of law as to whether the ruling cited by the counsel for the appellants is applicable and as to whether the report counter-signed by the Director is deemed to be valid in the instant case.

List this case on 14.12.2017.

Meanwhile, call for a criminal antecedent and social status report of all the appellants from the Principal Probation Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, so as to reach this Court within four weeks.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court through 'FAX' at once.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sandeep/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court