STATE Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a careful consideration of the entire evidence we find that the prosecution case that the accused Rajinder Singh had come along with Sham Lal in ambassador car DHB 9175 to house No. D-88 and two canisters alleged to be containing charas were taken out from the car and Rajinder Singh was nabbed while he was holding a loaded pistol in his hand is established beyond any doubt. [S. 3, Arms Act is then reproduced.]

(2.) From a reading of the proviso (to S. 3, Arms Act) it is clear that a person may without himself holding a licence, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence or under the written authority of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such holder. The evidence is that K.K. Sharma had given the pistol and the cartridges to Rajinder Singh for taking it for repairs to Moradabad and then to bring it back after repairs. The pistol and pistol & cartridges are alleged to have been given to Rajinder Singh on 7.12.77. Rajinder Singh was found in possession of the pistol loaded with bullets on the night of 8th, 9th December. The pistol was seized from the hand of Rajinder Singh in the circumstances mentioned by the prosecution and believed by us to be true. The circumstances in which Rajinder Singh was caught with the loaded pistol lead to the irresistable conclusion that he was carrying loaded pistol intending to use it should the need arise. On these facts there can be no escape from the conclusion that the pistol was being carried with the intention to use it. The intelligence with the police and excise officials was that Rajinder Singh and Sham Lal would be taking charas for delievery to Public Witness . 10. Two canisters alleged to be contaning charas were taken out of the car. Rajinder Singh was about to start the car when the car was surrounded by the police. The taking out of the pistol at that time, obviously, was for the purpose of using it.

(3.) Shri Mathur contended that the excise case has failed because it was found that the canisters did not contain charas. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the contents of the canisters have been tampered with. The witnesses have stated that the contents of the canisters are not the same which were there when the canisters were seized. We need not go into this aspect of the case. There is no appeal before us against the acquittal in the excise case. We would only like to say that there are strong indications on the record that there were pulls and pressure in the case. The fact that the excise case ended in acquittal has, in our view, no effect on this case. The circumstances in which the pistol was seized from the accused proves that Rajinder Singh intended to use the pistol for an unlawful purpose. The fact that the pistol was actually used or not is immaterial. We have earlier observed that the pistol and the cartridges were given by K.K. Sharma to Rajinder Singh for taking the pistol for repairs. Rajinder Singh had no authority to keep the loaded pistol and take it out when surrounded by the police and the excise officials. The possession of the pistol, in the circumstances mentioned, clearly was for an unlawful purpose. If the pistol was given for repairs on 7th there was no need for Rajinder Singh to carry the pistol loaded with cartridges in the night at 11 p.m. He would have definitely in that case kept the pistol at a safe place in the house. He would have taken it out only when he was to go to Moradabad to give the pistol for repairs. The Mgte. has gravely erred in law in finding that even after Rajinder Singh had taken out the pistol there was no intention to use it and his possession of the pistol remained lawful. The fact that the pistol was leaded and was snatched from the hand of Rajinder Singh puts beyond doubt that Rajinder Singh intended to use it.