STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BRAHMIN BABULAL HARIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What indeed is the duty of the learned Magistrate trying the accused for the alleged offences punishable under the Arms Act, 1959, when found in conscious and intelligent possession of fire -arms, more particularly in the backdrop of the breath-taking scenario of ghastly terrorism and bloody communal riots rocking the country taking innocent lives of the hundreds and thousands of citizens every year when befaced with the embarrassing pernicious situation where prosecution case entirely depends upon the evidence of the police officers and the panchas do not support the prosecution ? And further, incidentally enough for that purpose once again more particularly at the initial stage of the investigation, what indeed is the duty of the learned Magistrate when the police requests him praying for remanding the accused to its custody with a view to complete the chain of investigation to find out (i) the very source from where indeed he obtained firearms ? (ii) For what consideration ? (iii) to whom he was to sale or transfer or in any other manner hand over ? (iv) who were the other intermediatory links in between him and the manufacturers of the fire arms ? which is always and invariably absolutely necessary being an essential and the integral part of the logical investigation in the overall interests of the "law and order" and "justice" in the State, in the country .. In highly inflammable and surcharged anti-national atmosphere, with enemy countries with evil eye and design quite near across the border with their underground fifth columnist activities and continuously trafficking in fire-arms is a situation no less risky, grave and dangerous than to allow in an unguarded moment small possible spark setting ablaze the village, town, district, State and even the entire Nation if the law-enforcing agency and for that purpose even the Courts also are found unnecessarily relaxed, over-trusting, soft paddling and/or caught napping . Under such hostile circumstances, is it indeed not the duty of each and every Court to be quite alert and demonstrate judicial sensibility and awareness in dealing with the cases under the Arms and Explosive Act in place of quite care-free, unconcerned and unrealistic approach to the problem unlike the one evinced in the instant case ? The reason is no judicial perspective can ever ultimately bring home the real and substantial justice if it is divorced of overall social well being, concern and perspective .While doing justice, justice does not at all mean justice to the accused alone, it also very much includes justice to the society also. In sum and substance, the Court is not merely to handle cases, it is also required to deliver justice duly understanding them in their proper perspective . This ultimately depends upon judicial consciousness, awareness, patriotism, and all concern for the society .

(2.) To appreciate and understand the brief preface indexed above it is indeed necessary to refer here synopsis of few relevant facts. Accordingly, to briefly narrate the prosecution case, as it gets unfolded from the evidence of P.W. 4 Chandrakant Mehta, P.S.I., L.C.B., Porbandar, on 10-5-1987 when he alongwith P.I. Deol, and the other staff personnel was on patrolling duty, at about 13-50 hours near Old light house, he saw one person, who on seeing the police started running and on suspicion, was detained. On being interrogated, he revealed his name as Brahmin Babulal Haribhai. On taking out search of his person, one country made 32 bore pistol in working condition was recovered from waist beneath his pent. This was seized in presence of two panchas, namely, P.W. 1 Pratapgiri Amargiri and P.W. 2 Chana Laxman who ultimately did not support the prosecution (under panchnama produced at Exh. 7). When further inquired about licence for the said muddamal pistol, Brahmin Babulal Haribhai could not produce the same. Thereafter, P.W. 4 gave a complaint at Exh. 13 at 15-30 hours. On further interrogation, the accused expressed his willingness to show other pistols which he had kept hidden under the sand at the Porbandar sea-coast. Thereafter, P.W. 4 Chandrakant Mehta alongwith P.W. 3 Manubhai Virabhai panch (hostile) went to the sea-coast where the accused took out two bundles containing one gun and five pistols hidden below the sand. All these fire-arms were in working condition and came to be seized under the panchnama Exh. 10. On the basis of these facts, after obtaining necessary sanction Exh. 16, the accused came to be charge-sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar to stand trial for the offences under S.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959, and S.135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(3.) At the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He not only did not lead any defence, but did not suggest any motive even against the police for falsely implicating him in serious charge under the Arms Act.