BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BACHAN Singh has been tried on a charge under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who has convicted him under the said charge and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, this appeal has been filed by Bachan Singh.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that or July 19, 1985, Sub Inspector Jai Singh accompanied by Assistant Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh and other police officials including Head Constable Surjit Singh (P.W. 2) and Constable Surat Singh (P.W. 3) were present in Village Sihan Daud in connection with the investigation of a case under the Arms Act when they received an information through some informer about the appellant concealing hand grenades. Acting upon this information, the police party led by Assistant Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh raided the house of the appellant and found the appellant present at his house. Assistant Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh interrogated the appellant, who suffered a disclosure statement (Exhibit P.B.) and offered to recover two hand-grenades from his premises and thereby led the police party to his courtyard (cattle shed) and got recovered two hand-grenades from under the earth wrapped in a glazed paper near the heap of cow dung cakes. Recovery memo (Exhibit P.C.) was prepared (sic). One Jit Singh a witness of public, who also witnessed the interrogation of the appellant and the recovery consequent upon the disclosure statement, was given up by the prosecution.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the recovered articles are, as a matter of fact, not explosive substances. He has also challenged the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of two hand-grenades and has contended that the recovery was shown from a place which is not in exclusive possession of the appellant. He has further contended that no proper sanction for prosecution of the appellant was obtained under Section 7 of the Act because the sanction was not accorded by the Central Government as required by Section 7 of the Act. He has further contended that there is no independent witness examined to corroborate the evidence of the official witnesses (police witnesses). He has further contended that the evidence of the police witnesses, namely, Head Constable Surjit Singh (P.W.2) and Constable Surat Singh (P.W. 3) are full of contradictions and are discrepant. It was contended that, as a matter of fact, the accused was implicated in this case falsely at the instance of Sucha Singh, who had a score to settle with him because of the civil litigation, mentioned above. Lastly, the submission was that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court was excessive. These were the submissions which were made by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. I will deal with these submissions as under :-