BHUPENDER SINGH SOLANK @ BUNTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner challenges the judgment of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27 th October, 2010 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset states that the illegality in the impugned judgment is the incorrect appreciation of evidence. According to him since the site plan Ex.PW9/B does not mention that the country made pistol was recovered from the Petitioner it cannot be stated that the Petitioner was found in possession of the country made pistol. The arrest memo of the Petitioner does not mention that he was earlier involved in a case or that he was facing externment. The recovery of the pistol is not made from the Petitioner. Further there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW8 and PW9 as two of them state that the Petitioner was wanted in another case of Dabri, the third says that he was externed and the fourth witness states that he was wanted in a case of Vasant Kunj. Further no extrernment order has been produced. Despite the fact that the place was near the railway crossing and there was a temple also close by, no public witness was joined. The recoveries made were not as per the provisions of Section 100 (5) Cr.P.C. Further the case property was brought in unsealed condition and hence the recovery is belied.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the Petitioner had undergone imprisonment from 30 th September, 2004 to 15 th December, 2004 and thereafter from 28 th January, 2010 to 27 th October, 2010. Thus the sentence awarded to him was for the period undergone. The Petitioner alleges false implication however, both PW9 and PW10 have not been cross-examined. Since their testimonies have gone unchallenged the said plea is not available to the Petitioner. Further the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW8 and PW9 the recovery witnesses corroborate each other. The FSL report has also been received which has been exhibited as Ex. PW7/A which proves that the pistol found in the possession of the Petitioner was a fire arm. The prosecution has also proved the sanction Ex.PW6/A. Thus, the present petition is meritless and liable to be dismissed.