Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2009

Criminal Revision No.359 of 2009 (O&M)               1

       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                           Criminal Revision No.359 of 2009 (O&M)
                           Date of decision: 1.4.2009


Jaskaran Singh

                                                         ......Petitioner

                            Versus



State of Haryana

                                                     .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:     Mr.P.S.Jammu , Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

                    ****


SABINA, J.

The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section

25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 19.10.2007 by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali. Vide order dated

22.10.2007, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide

judgment dated 9.1.2009 by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Hence, the

present revision petition.

Criminal Revision No.359 of 2009 (O&M) 2

Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in

para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-

“As per prosecution version in view of ruqa Ex. PW-1 3/A,

Partap Singh ASI along with other police officials namely

Jai Singh Head Constable No. 1 810, Lady Constable

Sunita No. 76, Lady Constable Harjit Kaur No. 1160 and

Ashok Kumar Constable No. 519 during investigation of

case FIR No. 158 dated 3.9.2000 under Sections

307/506/34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act of P.S.Sadar

Dabwali reached along with Baltej Kaur at Maujgarh canal

and arrested the accused and during his personal search

he was found retaining one illicit pistol of .315 bore in his

Dabb and from his left pocket one empty was also

recovered. The length of the barrel was 5-1/2 inch, length

of the body was 1-3/4 inch and length of the Butt was 3-

1/2 inch and it was having a hammer trigger. Rough

sketch of the pistol was haviang a hammer trigger.

Rough sketch of the pistol was prepared and the pistol

and empty cartridge were sealed in a parcel with the seal

of PS and were taken in possession by separate recovery

memos and the seal after use was handed over to Baltej

Kaur PW. The investigating Officer sent ruqa for

registration of a case on the basis of which formal FIR

was recorded. He prepared rough site plan of the place
Criminal Revision No.359 of 2009 (O&M) 3

of recovery, recorded the statements of witnesses and

arrested the accused-appellant in this case and on return

to Police Station the case property was deposited with

the MHC in intact condition and the accused was lodged

in the lockup. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant

under Section 25 of the Arms Act was obtained from the

District Magistrate, Sirsa. After completion of

investigation the accused was challaned under Section 25

of the Arms Act and was sent up to the court for trial”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of

arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under

Section 25 of the Arms Act but has submitted that the sentence qua

imprisonment be reduced to as already undergone by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted

that FIR No.158 dated 3.9.2000 was registered against the petitioner

under Sections 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 25 of the Arms Act and in the said case the petitioner was

acquitted of the charge framed against him.

In the present case a country made pistol along with an

empty cartridge was shown to have been recovered from the

petitioner. The petitioner is not a previous convict.

Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody

certificate of the petitioner. As per which, the petitioner has

undergone three months and fifteen days of actual sentence as on
Criminal Revision No.359 of 2009 (O&M) 4

30.3.2009.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, the sentence qua imprisonment of the

petitioner is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by him.

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 25

of the Arms Act is maintained. However, the sentence of

imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to as already undergone by

him. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed

of.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

April 01, 2009
anita