PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present revision is order dated 25.8.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sri Muktsar Sahib affirming that of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha dated 4.2.2011, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo RI for one and half year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for 15 days.

(2.) The brief facts which are required to be noticed for determination of the present revision are that on 25.3.2007, a police party headed by ASI Baldev Singh was holding a check point (naka) the road leading from village Mallan to Kothe Amangarh. In the meanwhile, a police party headed by Rajan Parminder Singh of CIA Muktsar also came there. A car bearing registration No.HR 01-A 3601 came from the side of Kothe Amangarh and was stopped by ASI Baldev Singh. Two persons were occupying the car. ASI Baldev Singh conducted the investigation regarding the driver and asked HC Sukhwinder Singh to search the person sitting on the left side of the driver of the car. On the search conducted by HC Sukhwinder Singh, 32 bore country made pistol was recovered from the right lion pocket (dub) of the pyjama worn by the present accused. Two live cartridges of the same bore were also recovered from him. After obtaining the sanction of District Magistrate, challan was presented. After recording the entire evidence and hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The conviction was upheld in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in this case, arm was not test fired. Therefore, it cannot be said that the pistol recovered from the accused was in working order. For this purpose, reliance has been made on the statement of HC Kashmir Singh Armourer (PW2). It has been argued that he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not test fired the arm. Reliance has also been placed on the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azad Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC(Cri) 815. A perusal of the said authority shows that the case was under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. A contention was raised that the armourer had not fired any shot from the pistol. Therefore, the material on the file is insufficient to hold that the arm was in working order. The Apex Court observed as under:-