HARPREET SINGH ALIAS HAPPY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Harpreet Singh alias Happy has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE facts can be stated as follows :- The case of the prosecution is that Harpreet Singh alias Happy was arrested on 28th December, 1991 in case F.I.R. No. 128 dated 28th December, 1991 under Sections 380 and 411, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mukerian. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was interrogated and he disclosed that he had kept concealed two sten guns and four empty magazines underneath the heap of husk lying in the premises of O.K. Rice Sheller and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement was recorded. It was handed over and explained to him and he admitted the same as correct. The petitioner led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered two sten guns bearing Nos. 209569 and 52576 mark 9 MM and four empty magazines from underneath the heap of paddy husk. The accused could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the fire arm. Resultantly, case F.I.R. No. 129 dated 28.12.1991 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who convicted the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(3.) IT is the settled principle of law that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed a patent illegality in convicting the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act in case F.I.R. No. 129 of 1991 as the petitioner had already been acquitted in case F.I.R. No. 128 of 1991 as the subject-matter of both the F.I.Rs. was the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 14th February, 1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, which was in case F.I.R. No. 128 dated 28th December, 1991. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. In order to appreciate this contention, it has to be seen that the said F.I.R. No. 128 was registered under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. One application No. 205/TRG/Camp dated 27th December, 1991 was received by the police authorities on 28th December, 1991 regarding the annual training camp of N.C.C., S.P.N. College, Mukerian, and it was reported to the police that some weapons, including the sten guns and magazines in dispute were found missing. On the basis of this information this F.I.R. was recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 28th December, 1991 when the police was busy in the investigation of F.I.R. No. 128, the subject matter of which was theft. The ingredients of Section 380 read with Section 411, Indian Penal Code, are totally different than the ingredients of Section 25 of the Arms Act. The theft may or may not be proved, but if the recovery of weapons is proved and established from the petitioner and the petitioner could not produce any valid evidence for the possession of the fire-arms, his liability under Section 25 of the Arms Act is independent from Section 380 read with Section 411, I.P.C. Moreover the judgment of the learned Magistrate, relied upon by the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R. No. 128 under Section 380 read with Section 411, Indian Penal Code, because the prosecution could not produce any evidence for the statement of A.S.I. Jagdish Singh, in spite of the fact that several opportunities were granted to the prosecution. I have already stated above that acquittal of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 128 is not a bar for the prosecution to prove that at the time of the alleged recovery of the stenguns and magazines, the petitioner was not in a position to produce any licence or permit therefor.