Harjit Singh vs State of Haryana

M.B. Shah and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-6-1998 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Ambala in TADA Case No. 63 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Judge acquitted the appellant and three other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the TADA Act and Section 120-B of IPC. However, he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The learned Judge while awarding the sentence observed that appellant Harjit Singh was not a first offender and that he was found in possession of one AK-56 rifle, one magazine and 70 live cartridges of AK-56 rifle. He also considered that as per the provisions of Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, whoever acquires, has in his possession or carried any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Hence he sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to a fine of Rs 5000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

The learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was convicted in any other offence earlier. Therefore the reason given by the learned Judge for imposing higher punishment is without there being any evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to point out any evidence on record to justify the said reason recorded by the learned Judge.

In the present case after considering the evidence in detail the Court had arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove charges under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the TADA Act. As per the record the appellant is in custody since 18-4-1995 and has undergone sentence for more than five years. Further there is nothing on record to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant was not a first offender. The Court has also given specific finding that there is no evidence that the accused contravened the provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act with an intent to commit terrorist activities. In this view of the matter we modify the order passed by the learned Designated Judge imposing the sentence and reduce the same to the sentence undergone.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant to be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case.