HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: May 26th , 2009

Murder Reference No. 5 of 2000

State of Punjab

…Prosecutor

Versus

Swaran Singh

…Respondent

CWP No. 8389 of 2003

Sartej Singh Narula and another

…Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others

…Respondents

*-*-*

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

*-*-*

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

*-*-*

Present:

Mr. T.S.Sangha, Sr. Advocate with

Mrs. G.K.Mann, Mr. D.S.Randhawa, Mr. H.S.Sangha and

Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocates for the appellant Swaran Singh

Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab

Mrs. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for Union of India

*-*-*

Murder Reference No.5 of 2000

-2-

T.S.Thakur (Chief Justice)

A Division Bench of this Court has while hearing two

murder appeals and an accompanying reference expressed doubts

about the correctness of a decision rendered by another Division

Bench in Santokh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2000(3) Recent

Criminal Reports 637 and referred to a larger bench, the following

two questions for an authoritative pronouncement:-

1.

Whether the judgment of Division Bench is correct in law?

2.

Whether section 27(3) of the Arms Act is unconstitutional

being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of

India?

The reference arises in the following backdrop:-

Appellants Swaran Singh and Balwinder Singh, who were

at the relevant point of time working as Special Police Officers in

Punjab State Police Department, were both tried for commission of

an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. The trial Court

found both the appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to

undergo imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- each.

Appellant Swaran Singh was also convicted under Section 27(3) of

the Arms Act for committing murder with a prohibited fire arm and

sentenced to death. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Criminal

Appeal Nos. 273-DB and 296-DB of 2000, which were taken up for

hearing by a Division Bench of this Court together with Murder

Reference No.5 of 2000 under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. for

confirmation of the death sentence.

Murder Reference No.5 of 2000

-3-

By its order dated 13.02.2001 the Division Bench

confirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court to the extent the

same held appellant Swaran Singh guilty of committing the murder of

deceased Sat Pal. Appellant Balwinder Singh was however acquitted

of the charges and his appeal allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Disposal of the reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded

to appellant Swaran Singh was postponed as the Court prima facie

held the view that the decision in Santokh Singh’s case (supra)

required reconsideration to the extent the same declared that a .303”

rifle was not a prohibited arm within the meaning of Arms Act. The

Division Bench observed:-

“It is true that the observations of the Division Bench do

support the argument of the learned counsel but we are of

the opinion that the said judgment ignores the basic fact

that the method of loading or unloading a weapon is not

the only determining factor leading to its classification as

a prohibited arm as Section 2(1)(i) of the Act must be

read along with Schedule-I to the Arm Rules, 1962. We

are prima-facie of the opinion that entry I(c) of the

Schedule deals with the present situation and not entry

I(a).”

The Court also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court

in Mithu Vs. State of Punjab, 1983 SCC (Crl.) 405 whereby Section