Important point
When the gun seized was such a type which required filling of gun powder before firing and police officer who was trained in handling gun deposed that machanism was in order, no further test firing was neces­sary to find out working condition and therefore want of evidence of armourer or an expert cannot come in the way of conviction.

Judgment

Nanvati, J.-The appellant has been convicted by the Designated Court. Sangrur, in Special Sessions Case No. 75 of 1992 (Sessions Trial No. 265 of 1994) under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven­tion) Act, 1987. He has filed this appeal challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed against him.

2. What is held proved by the Designated Court against the appellant is that he has found in possession of a Double Barrel Gun bearing No. 294 without a permit/ licence to possess the same. The Designated Court believed the evidence of Head Constable Mall Singh (PW 2) and A.S.I. Baldev Singh (PW 3) both of whom were the members of the police party which had intercepted the appellant and had found the appellant in possession of the said gun. They have stated in their evidence that the gun was in working condition. It was that type of gun in which gun powder is required to be filled in first before it could be fired. They were not cross-examined as regards working condition of the gun.

3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the identity of the gun was not established and no evidence of an expert was led to prove that it was in working condition by test firing the same, the appellant ought not to have been conviction for the offences alleged against him. In our opinion, there is no sub­stance in this contention because the type of gun which was found from the appellant was ‘Mujhal’ or ‘Toredar’ gun. As we have pointed out earlier this type of gun can be fired by first filling it with gun powder. In respect of such a weapon no further test firing was neces­sary in order to find out whether it was in a working condition or not. Once it was found by the Police Officer that the mechanism was in order, it could be reasonably inferred that it was in working condi­tion. Therefore, even in absence of any evidence of an armourer or an expert of that type evidence of a Police Officer who is trained in handling guns can be accepted. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and order of sentence passed against him. This appeal is dismissed.

(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.

**********

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(8) Supreme 433 : (1998) 7 SCC 372

00025