NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4.48 The Commission carefully examined the judgment dated 19.07.2014 delivered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, who had observed that as per FIR, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, S.I., had recovered the illegal arm on 24.10.2007 at about 05.00 p.m. from the accused Gautam Kumar Singh at village Karsop where he had gone in connection with the investigation of crime No.144/2007, whereas the case diary of crime No.144/2007 revealed that Sanjay Kumar Pandey, S.I. was at Sambhuganj Bazaar from 04.00 p.m. to 05.30 p.m., on that day, as such the recovery of the illegal arm is a fabricated story, as he cannot be present at the same time at two different places. The Magistrate also noted that the Musket when produced in court was in a dilapidated condition. Its firing barrel was tied with rope. The striker and trigger was found completely unfixed and tied with a string. The bolt for fixing the striker to firing barrel was found absent. Thus, the Musket was not in a working condition. The Magistrate also discussed the testimony of Sergeant Major Umesh Kumar, who had examined the seized firearm. He noted that the witness had not test fired the weapon and had given opinion without disclosing the basis of its finding. He also noted that the two independent witnesses of the alleged recovery of firearm had refused to support the prosecution in the court. Both of them stated that they had been called to the police station and their signatures were obtained on the seizure memo at the police station. With these observations, the Magistrate acquitted the accused. 4.49 The Commission in its proceedings dated 31.08.2015 observed that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banka, while acquitting the accused, had given cogent and sound reasons for his judgment. No doubt, an appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate is pending, but the pendency of the appeal cannot be a bar on the Commission from proceeding with the inquiry. More so, because the appellate court has not stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. Considering all the facts of the case, the Commission observed that Gautam Kumar Singh was, prima facie, falsely implicated in a criminal case. The matter becomes all the more serious because admittedly, the victim had no criminal antecedents. The Commission, therefore, issued a notice to the Government of Bihar, requiring it to show cause as to why monetary relief u/s 18 of the PHRA 1993 be not recommended to be paid to Gautam Kumar Singh. 4.50 Since no reply to the notice was received, a reminder dated 05.02.2015 was issued to the Chief Secretary. In that reminder, it had been specifically indicated that the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar would send his report on or before 26.02.2016 and if, for any reason, the reply was not received within the aforesaid date, the Commission would presume and assume that the Government of Bihar had nothing to say in the matter. 4.51 The matter was taken up during the Camp Sitting of the Commission at Patna, Bihar on 22.04.2016 and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar reiterated that against the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the State had already filed an appeal and the Commission should wait for the outcome of the appeal that was pending before the District 50 ANNUAL REPORT 2016-2017