Breaking News:

Knowledge about concealed illegal arms proves guilt

.
Appellate Division
(Criminal)
Md Muzammel Hossain CJ.
Surendra Kumar Sinha J      
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Md Imman Ali J
Md Mamtaz Uddin Ahmed J
Md Shamsul Huda J
Judgment August 14th, 2011.
Nasir Uddin     ......... Petitioner
vs
State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Narayanganj .......... Respondent
Arms Act (XI of 1878)
Section 19A and 19(f)
Arms and ammunitions were recovered as per admission and also at the showing of accused-petitioner from a place which is very near to his dwelling house. The accused-petitioner did not give any explanation as to his knowledge about these concealed arms and ammunitions or as to how these arms and ammunitions came there. The Courts below rightly held that these arms and ammunitions were recovered from the possession of accused-petitioner. .....(10)
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate instructed by AKM Shahidul Huq, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
None represented-For Respondent
Judgment
Nazmun Ara Sultana J : This criminal petition has been tiled by the convicted accused seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 12-8-2009 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 4850 of 2005 dismissing the appeal.
2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal are as follows:-
On 15-3-2005 SI Md Farooq Khalil of RAB-3 Adamjee Nagar, Narayangonj, being informant, lodged an ejahar with Siddirganj Police Station to the effect that on 14-3-2005 he along with other accompanying force were on special duty within Siddirganj PS area. At that time they received a secret information that terrorist Nasir was staying in his house with illegal arms. The informant and other accompanying force then went to the house of terrorist Nasir and arrested him from there and interrogated him and Nasir then confessed that he had some illegal arms and ammunitions in his possession which he kept concealed in a heap of garbage located to the western side of his house. The informant then as per showing of the accused Nasir recovered one pistol made in Italy, one revolver made in Japan, two round of bullets of pistol and seven round cartridges of gun from there in presence of witnesses. The informant seized those illegal arms and ammunitions as per seizure list in presence of witnesses who also put their signatures in that seizure list. The informant then came to Siddirganj Police Station with accused Nasir and the recovered arms and ammunitions and lodged the FIR.
3. On the basis of that FIR Siddirganj Police Station Case No. 19 dated 15-3-2005 was started. The police investigated that case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against "the accused-petitioner Md Nasir Uddin under Section 19A and 19(f) of the Arms Act. The case became ready for trial and it was ultimately transmitted to the Special Tribunal No.7, Narayangonj for trial. The case was registered as Special Tribunal Case No. 184 of 2005. The Special Tribunal framed charge against the accused-petitioner under Section 19A and 19(f) of the Arms Act, 1878. The charge so framed was read over to the accused-petitioner who pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove the case while defence examined none. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when he again pleaded not guilty. The defence case was a plea of innocence. The learned Judge of the Special Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and other facts and circumstances found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 14 years under Section 19A of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act with the direction that both the sentences will run concurrently.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Special Tribunal No. 7 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4850 of 2005 before the High Court Division and the said appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court Division. By the impugned judgment and order dated 12-8-2009 the High Court Division dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Tribunal and maintaining the order of conviction under Section 19A and 19(f) of the Arms Act, but reduced the period of sentence under Section 19A of the Arms Act from 14 years rigorous imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this judgment and order of the High Court Division the petitioner has preferred this criminal petition for leave to appeal.
7. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued mainly to the effect that the seized arms and ammunitions, admittedly, were not recovered from the possession of this accused-petitioner, that according to the case of the prosecution itself this alleged illegal arms and ammunitions were recovered from a heap of garbage over which this accused-petitioner had no possession or control at all. The learned Advocate has argued that admittedly the alleged illegal arms and ammunitions were not recovered from the possession and control of this accused-petitioner and there is also no cogent evidence on record to prove that this accused-petitioner brought out those alleged arms and ammunitions from the heap of garbage and handed over those to police. The learned Advocate has argued that in this case the seizure list witnesses did not support the prosecution of recovery of these arms and ammunitions and that the sole evidence of police personnel only cannot prove the alleged recovery of the illegal aims and ammunitions from the possession of this accused petitioner. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate has contended that where the prosecution case itself is that alleged arms and ammunitions were recovered from some other place and not from the possession of this accused-petitioner the finding of the courts below to the effect that the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery-of alleged-arms and ammunitions from the possession of this accused-petitioner has been erroneous.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and examined the judgment of the Courts below.
9. It appears that both the Courts below have thoroughly scrutinized and considered the evidence of as many as 10 prosecution witnesses and found that the evidence of these prosecution witnesses have amply proved that on 14-3-2005 the informant along with his accompanying, force arrested the accused-petitioner from his house and then as per his admission and also at his showing and pointing out they recovered two fire-arms and some bullets and cartridges from a heap of garbage by the side of the house of the accused-petitioner.
10. We do not find anything to interfere with this concurrent findings of the courts below. The learned Counsel's contention that where the seized arms and ammunitions were admittedly recovered from a public place and not from the house of the accused-petitioner and not from his possession it cannot be said that these recovered arms and ammunitions were under the control and possession of this accused-petitioner-also is not acceptable. In this case it has been amply proved that these arms and ammunitions were recovered as per admission and also at the showing of this accused-petitioner from a place which is very near to his dwelling house. The accused-petitioner did not give any explanation as to his knowledge about these concealed arms and ammunitions or as to how these arms