JUJHAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 3-6-20002 passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandsaur arising out of the order dated 29-1-2002 passed in Cr. Case No. 194/95 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanpura, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to R. I. for one year.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 22-6-95, Head Constable Chandrashekhar was on patrolling duty along with Head Constable Gan-gaprasad and Sohanlal. When they were on Bhanpura road, they saw the applicant with a rifle near Gordhanpura-culvert. On inquiry, it was found that the applicant was not having any licence for the said gun. Therefore, the Head Constable Chandrashekhar, in the presence of Chowkidar Ramlal and Panch witness Kanhaiyalal seized the loaded gun on 26-2-95 vide seizure memo Ex. P-1. In the seizure memo crime number was not mentioned because the offence was yet to be registered after reaching at the police station as per provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By arrest memo Ex. P-2 the applicant was arrested and as a safety measure, the gun was made empty by firing in the air. Panchnama to this effect Ex. P-3 was also prepared. The statements of Ramlal and Kanhaiyalal were recorded as Exs. P-4 and P-5. Thereafter, they took the applicant to the police station and the Head Constable Chandrashekhar recorded the First Information, Registering Crime No. 122/95. After recording the First Information Report, sanction for prosecution as per requirement under Section 39 of the Arms Act was also obtained vide Ex. P-7. Ex. P-8 is the report about working condition of the gun. Charge-sheet was filed as per provisions under Section 173 of the Cr. PC. The applicant was tried and convicted by the Trial Court and the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Court.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1995 Cr. LJ 3988), the conviction of the applicant is not sustainable, because the investigation was conducted by the Head Constable Chandrashekhar (P. W. 3) being complainant, who had lodged the report (First Information Report) at the police station.