CHANAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 14.8.1985, SI Surinder Kumar along with some other police officials was going towards village Basrawan in connection with patrol duty. During the way, DSP Varinder Singh and other police officials from Central Reserve Protection Force were associated. When they reached near the turning of Kalwan, Swaran Singh Sarpanch of village Kalwan met the policy party and the police party held a nakabandi on the culvert in the area of Basrawan where SI Surinder Kumar had received secret information that Chanan Singh had arms and ammunition in his possession in his farm house and if a raid was conducted, recovery could be effected. A raid was conducted at the first house of Chanan Singh. He was taken into custody and was interrogated. During interrogation, Chanan Singh disclosed that he had kept concealed and buried two rifles of 303 mark-II, one carbine machine 9 mm, 141 live cartridges of 9 mm and 76 live cartridges of 303 under the heap of toori. His disclosure statement Ex. PA was recorded. The accused Chanan Singh led the police party to the specified place and got recovered the above said arms and ammunition. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and after completion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for 3 months under section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala dated 7.11.1992. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who vide order dated 10.1.1994 upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) MR . P.S. Hundal, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold contention.

(3.) MR . H.S. Grewal, learned DAG submitted that violation of Punjab Police Rule has not caused prejudice to the petitioner. He contended that this rule is not mandatory and it is directory in nature.