The judgment establishes that the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient punishment, influencing the decision to reduce the sentence.

1. The instant appeal is filed to challenge conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short to be referred as the 'Act'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 25 of the Act

2. The facts of the case briefly are that appellant was arrested by Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) on 23.12.2005 and recovery of 26 kilograms of heroin was made from the motorcycle on which he was travelling. Separate proceedings for that recovery were conducted. From further search of appellant, NCB team headed by PW4 Ravi Kant Pawar recovered one silver colour pistol (mouser) bearing No. 67120 CAL 30 made in China by Norin Company along with five live cartridges in the magazine. Due to security reasons, proceedings with regard to seizure of weapon were completed in Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. The sanction for prosecuting the appellant was also obtained from the District Magistrate. The appellant was then presented before the Magistrate but since the case with regard to recovery of heroin was pending before the Judge Special Court, learned Magistrate also committed this case to the Judge Special Court. Accordingly, both the trials were conducted by the same Court.

3. Charge was framed against the appellant for offence under Section 25 of the Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses in support of his case. Learned trial Court, however, closed evidence of prosecution by order after observing that sufficient opportunities had already been availed.

4. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and set up the following defence plea:-

I have been falsely implicated in this case and false recovery has been planted upon me. Iqbal Singh son of Resham Singh, Resham Singh son of Karam Singh, Kuldeep Singh son of Resham Singh, Manjit Singh son of Jagtar Singh, Chhinder Singh son of Resham Singh all residents of village Kamalwala P.S. Mallanwala and Joga Singh son of Kashmir Singh, Saroj Singh son of Resham Singh, Karamjit Singh son of Resham Singh all residents of village Boggewala wanted to take forcible possession of my agricultural land. All the above said persons used to threat me that I will be falsely implicated in some criminal case for which I had intimated to the higher officers and also to the then Ilaqa Magistrate of P.S. Mallanwala.

5. No evidence was led in defence. Learned trial Court then found the charge against the appellant to be proved and convicted and awarded the sentence as aforesaid.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel and also perused the trial Court records.

7. The main witness to prove version of recovery is PW4 Ravi Kant Pawar, Deputy Field Officer then posted as Intelligence Officer of NCB on 23.12.2005. The witness testified that there was specific information regarding drug trafficking at Arif Ke Muthian Wala road. They formed a joint team of NCB officials and police officials of Police Station Sadar Ferozepur and CIA Staff. They held the picketing at the turning of road leading to Village Usmanwala. PW4 further stated that at about 6.00 am, two persons riding Motorcycle came towards that side. The appellant was driving the motorcycle. The witness stated about the recovery of heroin from the bag kept in the motorcycle. He then stated about the pistol which is described as mouser in the prosecution version.

8. PW4 further stated that on making recovery of the mouser, the weapon and cartridges were handed over to SHO of Police Station Sadar Ferozepur alongwith a letter for which Memo Ex. P2 was prepared and attested by PW4.

9. PW4 has been extensively cross-examined and there is absolutely nothi