GAMDOOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAMDOOR Singh, the appellant/petitioner, was stated to be on 18-71977 a pedestrian on a road near village Chak Duhe Wala, district Faridkot. He was confronted by a patrol party, riding in a Government jeep, comprising of Gurcharan Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Muktsar, Gurdev Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Kashmira Singh, Head Constable. Gamdoor Singh tried to slip away on seeing the police party and as suspicion arose, the said party effected his arrest. Gamdoor Singh was carrying a jhola which on search was found to contain a. 32 pistol, a. 38 revolver, two hand grenades and two fuses. They were taken into possession under relevant seizure memos. A letter was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. Since the substance recovered from Gamdoor Singh gave rise to commission of two different offences, two separate challans were presented against him; one under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the other under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The first afore-referred to case was committed to the Court of Session and the second afore-referred to case was kept by. a Judicial Magistrate. The split course adopted gave rise to two trials.

(2.) BEFORE the Court of Session, Gamdoor Singh appellant was read over charge under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecu- tion then examined Gurdev Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (P. W. 1); Inspector Gurcharan Singh, Station House Officer (P. W. 2), Sukhwant Singh, Head Constable (P. W. 3) and Radha Raman, Constable (P. W. 4) besides tendering in evidence the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant and the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives. Neither the statements of the witnesses were challenged in cross-examination nor were the genuineness of afore-referred to sanction or the report disputed by the defence. During examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant admitted the case of the prosecution as put to him and pleaded that he had four sons, out of whom the eldest was aged 10 years, and that he was the sole breadwinner of the family. He led no evidence in defence or in the matter of sentence. It is on the admitted case of the prosecution that the appellant came to be convicted under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Such order was passed on 12-4-1979. '

(3.) GAMDOOR Singh petitioner while facing trial under Section 25 of the Arms Act before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar, was confronted with the evidence of only two prosecution witnesses examined at the trial. They were Kashmir Singh, Head Constable (P W 1) and Gurcharan Singh, Inspector, Station House Officer (PW2 ). Gurdev Singh was given up as unnecessary. Now this time the petitioner denied the material allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He led defence evidence also. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence and rejecting the defence version, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, On hearing the petitioner on the question of sentence, the learned trial Magistrate took into account the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the Court of Session, Faridkot, under the Explosive Substances Act, which had arisen from the same recovery. He thus sentenced him to four months rigorous imprisonment. An attempt to challenge the said conviction and sentence before the appellate Court proved abortive as the successor Sessions Judge too abided by the view that his learned predecessor had recorded an order of conviction in the Explosive Substances Act case and held the recovery to be proved. However, in the matter of sentence, the petitioner could get the concession that the same was ordered to run concurrently with the one imposed under the Explosive Substances Act.