1. Conviction under Section 25 Arms Act for carrying licensed weapon outside permitted territory challenged; acquittal on revision. (Para 1 , 2 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMRITPAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH – Respondent
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued lack of mens rea and technical violation; prosecution argued conscious possession sufficient. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 )
3. Revision allowed; conviction set aside; petitioner acquitted of all charges. (Para 1 , 24 )
4. Is conscious possession required for conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act?
Yes, possession must be with knowledge and awareness; mere custody without awareness does not constitute an offence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
5. Does carrying a licensed weapon into an area outside its permitted territory without knowledge amount to an offence?
No, unless there is conscious possession and intent to violate; technical violation without mens rea is not punishable. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. Is the prosecution required to prove that the place of recovery is outside the licensed area?
Yes, the prosecution must produce documentary evidence such as notifications to establish that the location is beyond the licensed territory. (Para 23 )
7. Can the prosecution rely on prior wireless information without producing records?
No, absence of documentary evidence of prior information suggests afterthought and undermines credibility. (Para 13 , 22 )
8. Can the conduct of the accused, such as sleeping and having a ticket for a destination within the licensed area, indicate lack of mens rea?
Yes, such conduct suggests no intention to commit an offence and supports absence of conscious possession. (Para 15 , 22 )
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. By way of present criminal revision petition, petitioner- Amritpal Singh, challenged the judgment of conviction passed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, as well as the order of sentence whereby he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹ 1,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo an additional 15 days of imprisonment.
Judgment of conviction dated 13.05.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh (Trial Court), and consequential order of sentence of the same date, were upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (Appellate Court) vide judgment dated 05.12.2022.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 11.11.2016, while the police team was on patrolling duty, at approximately 9:40 p.m., a wireless message was received from the control room stating that an individual was carrying illegal arms in CTU Bus No. CH01-G-5307. A naka was subsequently established near the police post at Palsora, where the bus was stopped and passengers were instructed to remain seated. When the accused (petitioner herein) attempted to deboard the bus, he was apprehended by the police team members. Upon inquiry, he disclosed his name as Amritpal Singh. During a search, he was found in possession of one revolver of .32 bore caliber along with sixteen live cartridges secured on a belt, without holding any valid arms license or permit. A complaint was prepared, and a rukka was sent for the registration of an FIR, following which necessary steps for the investigation were initiated.
3. After submission of final report before the Court, the trial proceeded, and charges were framed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined Retired Sub-Inspector Rajwant Singh as PW-1, who proved the original complaint as Exhibit P-1, the FIR as Exhibit P-2, the rough site plan of the place of incident as Exhibit P-3, the personal search memo as Exhibit P-4, the seizure memo of parcels as Exhibit P-5, and the sketch of the weapon as Exhibit P-6. PW-1 also identified the accused present in the Court.
4. PW2, Head Constable Het Ram, corroborated the statement of PW1 and further proved the application submitted by him to the District Magistrate cum Arms Licensing Authority, Jalandhar (Punjab), marked as Exhibit P-7, office report as Exhibit P-8, and sanction order issued by the District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh, marked as Exhibit P-9.
5. PW3, Ajit Kumar, Duty Inspector, testified to proving the route taken by the bus.
6. PW4, Devinder Singh, Conductor of the bus, deposed that the bus had travelled from Chandigarh to Amritsar and, on their return journey to Chandigarh, upon reaching near Max Hospital, the bus took a turn towards Mandi where a police barrier was established. Upon police inquiry, the bus was stopped, and during the checking of passengers, the accused was found in possession of one pistol of .32 bore along with 16 live cartridges.
7. PW5, Head Constable Bhir Bhan, proved the Register No. 19 along with a true copy of its entry No. 190 (marked as Exhibit PW5/1) and the case property, which was marked as Exhibit MO1.
8. PW6, Hardial Singh, Driver of the bus, appeared and corroborated the statement of PW4, Devinder Singh-Conductor.
9. PW7, Rajinder Kumar, Clerk of the Arms License Branch, proved the summoned records, specifically the Arms License Issuance Register covering license numbers 20741 to 20925. As per his deposition, License No. 20923 was issued in the name of Amritpal Singh (petitioner herein) for a .32 bore revolver, and the license was valid for the jurisdiction of Punjab. PW7 also proved the office report marked as Exhibit P-8, entry as Exhibit PW7/1, issuance receipt as Exhibit PW7/2, addition of weapon as Ex.PW7/3 and entry of weapon as Ex. PW7/4.
10. While recording the statement under Section 313 of the Crimina
