SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 18/12/1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, the present appellant had been convicted under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 29/10/1995, SHO Gurdial Singh alongwith ASI Jaswinder Singh, Constable Gurdip Singh and other police officials held a Naka at Simble Chock, Pathankot on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A jeep bearing registration No. HP-02-3098, being driven by the accused was seen coming from the opposite side, which was stopped by the police party. It was checked by the police party and on the search two gunny bags were recovered from the spot from the seat of the jeep. The two gunny bags were opened and it was found that there was explosive substance in the same. Two samples of 500 grams each were separated in plastic bags and two separate parcels were prepared. The remaining substance in the two bags, on weighing, was found to be 42 kilograms and 500 grams and 7 kilograms and 800 grams, respectively, which were put back in the same of gunny bags and all the parcels were sealed with the seal 'GS' and was handed over to ASI Jaswinder Singh. The case property was taken into possession vide a recovery memo, which was attested by ASI Jaswinder Singh and Constable Balbir Singh. On the personal search of the accused, a sum of Rs.1400.00 was recovered from the hand bag, which was held by the accused in his hand. Certain other recoveries were also made vide separate recovery memos. Even the jeep was also taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo, which was attested by the witnesses.

(3.) To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all.