CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Kaka Singh vs State of Punjab

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 5 May 1999 · Citation: (1999) 2 ACR 1486 : AIR 1999 SC 2258 : (1999) AIRSCW 2298 : (1999) 1 ALD(Cri) 907 : (1999) CriLJ 3521 : (1999) 3 Crimes 53 : (1999) 4 JT 93 : (1999) 3 SCALE 581 : (1999) 9 SCC 157 : (1999) 5 Supreme 334 : (1999) 2 UJ 1017

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N. Phukan, J · G. T. Nanavati, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25 · Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 — Section 5
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal A. No. 584 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 287 words

Nanavati, J.—On 14.5.92, Inspector Sohan Singh alongwith other police personnel was on patrolling duty. While he was about three furlongs away from village Barnala and was proceeding towards village Nangal Kalan, he saw one person going on foot. On seeing the police, he tried to hide something which he was holding in his arms. This conduct made Sohan Singh suspicious and, therefore, he went near him, searched him and found that he was carrying a single barrel rifle. As the appellant did not have any licence for possessing a fire-arm and live cartridges, he came to be challenged and then prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s 5 of the TADA Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2.

The prosecution examined Sohan Singh - PW 3 to prove its case and also supported the charge by examining other witnesses. The Designated Court believed the evidence of PW 3 and convicted the appellant.

3.

We have gone through the evidence of PW 3 - Sohan Singh and we do not find any reason to disbelieve his version. The rifle had No. 68830 written on it. Some words written on the butt were also noticed. Some slogans were also written on the butt of the rifle. All these details were mentioned by Inspector Sohan Singh in the FIR and also in the recovery memo. Thus there can be no doubt that rifle which was produced before the court was the one recovered from the appellant. As the appellant was proved to have possessed a rifle and cartidges without a licence, in the notified area, his conviction u/s 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act is quite proper.

4.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.