SANTU SNKARLAL KHATRI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and conviction order dated 16.4.1994 recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Panchmahals camping at Dahod in Sessions Case No.117/1993 whereby the learned trial Judge convicted the present appellant for an offence punishable under section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act (for short, 'the said Act') and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years. The trial court also directed the appellant to pay fine of Rs.100.00 and in default of payment of fine, he was required to undergo further R.I. for 10 days. The facts of the case leading to the said Sessions Case may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) For an offence punishable under section 326 of IPC, a case was registered against the present appellant being Dahod Town Police Station C.R. No.48/93. The appellant was wanted in the said matter. The second PSI of the said police station B R Ganava received an information that the present appellant was found sleeping under eucalyptus trees near Dahod and that he was also in possession of a country made hand gun. Therefore, the said PSI, along with other police officials, went to the said spot and when they reached the said place, the appellant could notice them coming to him and therefore, he tried to run away. The appellant was chased and was apprehended. His personal search was carried out and during the course of the said personal search, country made hand gun was found in his possession. A knife was also found in his possession, which was seized in the aforesaid offence being CR No.48/93. FIR was filed by Mr B R Ganava on 3.5.1993 against the present petitioner for offence under section 25(1-AA) and 29 of the said Act stating that the appellant was found in possession of a country made hand gun and he had no licence for possessing the same and thereby he committed the offences as aforesaid. After carrying out the investigation, charge sheet was filed and ultimately the case was committed to Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.11/93. After following due procedure, evidence was recorded and at the conclusion of the evidence, further statements were recorded, arguments were heard and the appellant was found guilty for the said offence and after hearing the quantum of punishment, the trial court inflicted the aforesaid punishment on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by said judgment and conviction order passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this court. It has been contended here that the trial court has overlooked provisions of section 39 of the said trial court to hold the appellant guilty. That therefore, the judgment and conviction order are illegal and erroneous and deserve to be set aside. The present appellant, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and conviction order be set aside and the appellant be acquitted outright.

(3.) At the time of receipt of the appeal, it was ordered to be admitted and the appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail. At the final hearing, Mr N N Prajapati, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant, on his appointment as Advocate in legal aid. Mr K C Shah, learned APP appeared for the State. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and they have taken me through the evidence and judgment of the trial court. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there was non-compliance of provisions made in Section 39 of the said act. Section 39 may be reproduced for ready reference: