SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special courts) Act. 1984. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Judge Special court Ludhiana in Criminal Case No. 41/85 arising out of FIR No. 18 6/03/1984 are under challenge. The prosecution alleged that on 20/03/1984, Constable Dhian Singh and Constables Paramjit Singh. Balbir Singh, Milkjit Singh were present near the canal bridge of village Nandpur in connection with a nakabandi at about 4.30, a. m. At that time, the accused came from the side of Ludhianaon bicycle. He was intercepted by the police party and from the basket attached to the cycle of the accused, a jhola was found containing tour and half kgs. of Opium and on further search of the person of the accused, a country made pistol of. 12 bore was also recovered from the pocket of the payjama of the accused. The accused could not produce any licence for the said pistol. Accordingly, the said pistol and the cartridges were seized and on the basis of the ruga Ex. PC. a formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. A rough site plan Ex. PD of the place of recovery was also prepared. After obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate Ludhiana being Ex. PE. the accused was tried before the learned Special Judge. The case of the prosecution was established by the police officials being PW1 and pw 2 and relying on the said evidence, the learned Judge convicted the accused and passed the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of rs. 200/ -. in default of payment, further rigorous imprisonment for two months. It may be slated that on behalf of the accused a witness DW1 Dharam singh was examined. But since the case was established convincingly by the deposition ofthe police officials who had no animus or personal interest against the accused, the testimony of Dharam Singh was not accepted by the learned Judge. Considering the facts of the case. we do not find any infirmity in the judgment for which any interference is called for. It. however, appears that the incident had taken place in early 1984 and the appellant was released on bail on 18-7-85. In the bail application made before this court, it was also stated that the accused had already suffered imprisonment for about five and half months. Considering the aforesaid fact. we reduce the sentence to period already undergone and save such modification of the sentence, we dismiss the appeal.