Ramesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Jharkhand

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - the appellate court confirmed the said conviction as well as the sentence.ordern. dhinakar, c.j.1. the petitioner, on being tried and found guilty for the offence under sections 25(1-b) and 26 of the arms act, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months. the appellate court confirmed the said conviction as well as the sentence. hence, the present revision.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.2.1989, house of the petitioner was searched by sri s.c. jha, officer-in-charge of mandu police station of hazaribagh district and on such search he found one rifle and five live cartridges. according to the prosecution, they were seized and seizure list was attested by the witness and a case being crime no. 69/89 was registered at manclu police station. after investigation the final report was filed. the petitioner denied the allegations.3. learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contends that since s.c. jha. the officer who is alleged to have seized the material objects from the petitioner's house and the witnesses who were alleged to have attested the seizure list, not having been examined and the only witness who was examined by the prosecution before the trial, who is alleged to have attested the material objects having turned hostile, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the contraband was seized from the house of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.4. i have heard mr. v.k. prasad, learned app, appearing for the state, who also admits that the officer, who prepared the seizure list, was not examined and that the attesting witness also turned hostile. it is also brought to my notice that there is no evidence to show that the said seizure was effected from the house of the petitioner.5. in absence of any evidence that the contraband was seized from the house of the petitioner, 1 am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for acquittal and he is accordingly acquitted.6. the revision is allowed. the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith unless.....