Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 750 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-07-15

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.4.1993 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Ludhiana vide which the appellant has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. As per the prosecution version, on 3.9.1990 at 10.50 p.m. the appellant was found in possession of a country made pistol and a live cartridge without a valid licence or permit. The said recovery was effected by PW4-ASI Vir Rajinder Pal in the presence of Constable Gurmail Singh PW-3 and Constable Chain Singh. The appellant was arrested on the spot. After getting sanction from the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, the prosecution was launched against him. Since the recovery was effected from the appellant in a notified area, therefore, a formal charge under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 Smt. Joginder Kaur proved the sanction (Ex. PA) given by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. PW-2 Head Constable Darshan Singh stated that he recovered pistol and the same was found to be in working condition. He proved his report (Ex. P-3). PW-3 Constable Gurmail Singh and PW-4 ASI Vir Rajinder Pal proved the recovery of the weapon from the appellant on 3.9.1990. 4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the allegations and stated that on 6.8.1990, when he was going to bazar, the police had illegally detained him and kept confined for many days. Subsequently on 3.9.1990, a country made pistol was planted on him and he was produced before the Magistrate. 5. In defence, the trial Court after considering the evidence available on the record, has held that though the recovery of the unlicened pistol and a live cartridge from the possession of the appellant was proved but it has not been proved that the said recovery had any nexus with a terrorist act or a disruptive activity. Thus, no offence under Section 5 of the Act was held to be proved against the appellant. Thus, no offence under Section 5 of the Act was held to be proved against the appellant. However, the recovery of 3 x 3 bore country made pistol and one live cartridge from the possession of the appellant without a valid licence was proved, therefore, he was convicted under Section 25 of the Act. 6. Counsel for the petitioner straightaway argued on the quantum of sentence. He submitted that in this case it has been proved on record that the alleged country made pistol was not possessed by the appellant with intention to commit any terrorist activity. There is nothing on the record which indicates that the appellant was convicted in any other offence earlier or has been convicted for similar offence subsequently. Further, the appellant was 21 years of age at the time of the alleged offence and now 15 years expired and the appellant has not indulged in any criminal activities during this period. The appellant has also faced the protracted trial of 15 years. He further states that the appellant has already undergone 1 month 9 days sentence. Therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that though the minimum sentence has been provided for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice will be met if one year sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. In this case, the appellant was tried for an offence under Section 5 of the Act but he was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. There is no evidence on the record which establishes that the appellant contravened the provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act with intention to commit disruptive activity, rather finding is that the alleged possession of the arms was having no connection with the terrorist act or disruptive activities. The appellant is the first offender. There is nothing on record which indicate that he was convicted earlier for any other offence. He has already undergone 15 years protracted trial and during the said period he has not been found involved in any other crime. The appellant is the first offender. There is nothing on record which indicate that he was convicted earlier for any other offence. He has already undergone 15 years protracted trial and during the said period he has not been found involved in any other crime. In similar circumstances, the Honble Apex Court in Harjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002)10 SCC 695, had reduced the sentence of 7 years under Section 25 of the Arms Act as already undergone. 8. In view of the above, though the conviction of the appellant is upheld but the sentence upon him under Section 25 of the Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.