GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdev Singh, petitioner, has filed the present revision petition to challenge the judgment dated 2.6.1988 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, affirming the decision of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot dated 15.4.1987 convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) On 27.7.1985, ASI Gian Chand had received secret information against the petitioner which he had incorporated in Ruqa Ex. PD and forwarded the same to Police Station, Jaitu for registration of a case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was registered. A raid had been unsuccessfully conducted on the house of the petitioner on the very day but the petitioner was not there. On 30.7.1985, again another raid was conducted unsuccessfully on the house of the petitioner. On 1.8.1985, the petitioner was apprehended by ASI Gian Chand and other police officials who were present on patrol duty in the area of village Kassam Bhatti, Rori Kapura etc. after he had tried to slip away on seeing the police party. His personal search led to the recovery of one .12 bore country made pistol loaded with cartridges and one live cartridge of the same bore. The pistol was in a working condition. It was unloaded and when the petitioner failed to produce the licence for possession of the same as well as the ammunition, these were taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex. PB. The petitioner was challaned and tried for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and convicted as indicated herein above.

(3.) In the appeal, the only plea advanced was that being a first offender and a poor person, the petitioner should have been dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. This plea was rejected on the ground that petitioner was not less than 21 years of age and, therefore, it was not incumbent on the Court to release him on probation.