PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Harpreet Singh alias Happy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 1997.
Decided On : 19 January, 1998
ARMS ACT - SECTION 25 - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 25 - POSSESSION OF FIREARMS WITHOUT LICENSE - CONVICTION - LEGALITY - ACQUITTAL IN THEFT CASE - NO BAR TO CONVICTION UNDER ARMS ACT - SECTION 25 - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 25 - POSSESSION OF FIREARMS WITHOUT LICENSE - CONVICTION - SENTENCE - PROBATION - NOT GRANTED - GRAVE OFFENSE - SECTION 360, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 4, PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act for possessing two sten guns and four empty magazines without a license. He had been arrested in a theft case (FIR No. 128/1991) and during the investigation, he disclosed the location of the concealed weapons. The petitioner was acquitted in the theft case, but the prosecution proceeded with the Arms Act case (FIR No. 129/1991). The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the acquittal in the theft case barred his conviction under the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquittal in the theft case was not a bar to the conviction under the Arms Act. The ingredients of theft under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code are different from those of possession of firearms without a license under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court found that the prosecution had proved the recovery of the weapons from the petitioner and that he could not produce any license or permit for their possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquittal in the theft case barred the conviction under the Arms Act. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquittal in the theft case did not bar the conviction under the Arms Act because the ingredients of the two offenses are different. The theft may or may not be proved, but if the recovery of weapons is proved and established from the petitioner and the petitioner could not produce any valid evidence for the possession of the fire-arms, his liability under Section 25 of the Arms Act is independent from Section 380 read with Section 411, Indian Penal Code. 2. The court declined to grant probation to the petitioner, considering the gravity of the offense and the fact that he possessed firearms without a license during a period of unrest in the state.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Harpreet Singh alias Happy has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The facts can be stated as follows :-
The case of the prosecution is that Harpreet Singh alias Happy was arrested on 28th December, 1991 in case F.I.R. No. 128 dated 28th December, 1991 under Sections 380 and 411, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mukerian. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was interrogated and he disclosed that he had kept concealed two sten guns and four empty magazines underneath the heap of husk lying in the premises of O.K. Rice Sheller and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement was recorded. It was handed over and explained to him and he admitted the same as correct. The petitioner led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered two sten guns bearing Nos. 209569 and 52576 mark 9 MM and four empty magazines from underneath the heap of paddy husk. The accused could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the fire arm. Resultantly, case F.I.R. No. 129 dated 28.12.1991 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who convicted the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, who vide judgment dated 25th November, 1997 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, present revision has been filed, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Sh. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Shri J.S. Brar, D.A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State.
4. It is the settled principle of law that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed a patent illegality in convicting the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act in case F.I.R. No. 129 of 1991 as the petitioner had already been acquitted in case F.I.R. No. 128 of 1991 as the subject-matter of both the F.I.Rs. was the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 14th February, 1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, which was in case F.I.R. No. 128 dated 28th December, 1991. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. In order to appreciate this contention, it has to be seen that the said F.I.R. No. 128 was registered under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. One application No. 205/TRG/Camp dated 27th December, 1991 was received by the police authorities on 28th December, 1991 regarding the annual training camp of N.C.C., S.P.N. College, Mukerian, and it was reported to the police that some weapons, including the sten guns and magazines in dispute were found missing. On the basis of this information this F.I.R. was recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 28th December, 1991 when the police was busy in the investigation of F.I.R. No. 128, the subject matter of which was theft. The ingredients of Section 380 read with Section 411, Indian Penal Code, are totally different than the
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.