SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE (UNION TERRITORY), CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Shamsher Singh,, son of Roop Singh was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and was sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment on both these counts, the two sentences to run concurrently. He has appealed.

(2.) The allegation is that on October 20, 1974, at about 1.30 p.m. Assistant Sub-Inspector Sadhu Singh (P.W. 7) who was then posted at Police Station East, Chandigarh, was present in Sector 47 Chandigarh, with a Police pose Rann Singh (P.W. 2) and Ram Parkash (P.W. 3) were also with him at that time. The Appellant was found coming from the side of Punjab boundary towards Sector 47 and on seeing the police party, he tried to retrace his steps. This aroused suspicion. The police party went towards the Appellant who started running. The party, however,, pursued him and were able to intercept him in a kacha field. He was overpowered and as a result of his search, he was found to be carrying Jhola Exhibit P 1 which contained four hand-grenades and four igniter-sets separately wrapped in a glazed paper bag. The Appellant could not produce any authority to possess these explosives. The articles were taken into possession and a case was registered against the Appellant. The recovered articles were sent to the office of the Controller of Explosives, North Circle, Agra, for examination and according to the report of the Deputy Controller, the articles were found to be four hand-grenades of Mills type and four igniter-sets, i.e., devices for initiating explosion in the hand-grenades. It was opined that all the four hand-grenades were capable of being exploded and endangering life after being initiated with the igniter-sets. The report of the Expert is Exhibit PG. The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration, granted his consent for the prosecution of the Appellant, and after his trial, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant, throughout the course of his lengthy address, has mainly contended that the sanction issued by the Chief Commissioner in the present case, has not been duly proved. The contention is that the Notification Exhibit PC was under the signatures of the Home Secretary of the Chandigarh Administration in which it was mentioned that the Chief Commissioner had granted the necessary consent for the prosecution of the Appellant. The objection to this document is that the original sanction granted by the Chief Commissioner has not been produced. In order to appreciate the soundness of the argument, it was ordered that the original record containing the sanction granted by the Chief Commissioner be requisitioned from his office. When the record was received, the learned Counsel for the Appellant stressed that the original sanction granted by the Chief Commissioner should be formally proved and a copy of the same be placed on the record through the agency of the witness who had brought the file. The prayer was allowed and the statement of Shri Sohinder Singh, Assistant of the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh was recorded. In this statement, the witness reproduced the exact wording of the sanction issued by the Chief Commissioner. The witness was allowed to be cross-examined by both the counsel for the parties.