IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Pronounced on : 01.12.2025 KULDEEP @ PINKU ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 18.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sonipat, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ only. By virtue of above-mentioned judgment, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2010 and order of sentence dated 02.12.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonipat, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’.

2. By virtue of above-mentioned judgment, the petitioner, who was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section-25 of Arms Act has been held guilty for the commission of above-mentioned offence, and the learned trial Court awarded following sentence to the petitioner:-

Offence(s) underImprisonment Fine In default of payment Section of fine

25 of Arms Act RI for 01 year Rs.200/- SI for 15 days

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned judgments, passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court are outcome of conjectures and surmises and therefore, both of them deserve to be set aside.

4. The pith and substance of the story put up before the learned trial Court is that the FIR No.81 dated 24.06.2004 was lodged in Police Station Rai, District Sonipat. The above-mentioned FIR was lodged on the report of ASI Rajiv Kumar, who had reported that on 26.04.2004 when he was leading a team of police officials for usual law and order duty, he spotted a boy coming from village Sevli side, who sensed the presence of police party on his way ahead got panicked and suddenly turned back with a motive to sneak away. It was further reported by the above-named police officer that on enquiry, the above-mentioned person was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Kuldeep @ Pinku and when the search of his person was conducted, it was found that he was carrying a pistol, kept below the belt of his trouser.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned recovery of weapon, without permit or licence, the requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of recovered weapon, filing of FIR and arrest of accused were performed and further investigation taken up. Pursuant to above- mentioned investigation when Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed, it led to conviction of the petitioner.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are outcome of non-application of judicial mind and that without looking into the fact that the prosecution had miserably failed to discharge its burden with regard to proving of charge, the learned trial Court vis-a-vis Appellate Court believed the unreliable evidence of the prosecution and returned the finding of conviction of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner not only the settled principles of law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt, have been ignored by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis by the learned Appellate Court, but also the fact that requisite formalities were not performed in accordance with law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner neither the sanction for the prosecution of petitioner was properly proved nor the recovery of the same from the possession of the petitioner. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the link evidence was also missing but on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the petitioner has been convicted.

8. Per contra, the learned State counsel has contended that there is concurrent finding