State of Punjab vs Kartar Singh

M.R. Sharma, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated February 27, 1976, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, whereby she acquitted the Respondent of an offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act.

The brief facts of the case are that on November 10, 1974 Sub-Inspector Rajinder Singh P.W. 2 formed a raiding party which consisted of Excise Inspector Satpal Singh P.W. 1 and some others. This party was returning from Sultanpur to Kapurthala in a Government vehicle. When it reached near the ''Bin Bridge'', the Respondent in the company of one Malook Singh was seen coming from the side of Kapurthala. On seeling the police party coming in the vehicle, the two of them tried to make a detour when they were apprehended on suspicion. Personal search of the Respondent was made who was found to be in possession of pistol Ex. P. 1 and two live cartridges of .12 bore. These articles were taken into possession by Rajinder Singh Sub-Inspector P.W. 2,--vide recovery |Memo. Ex. PB. The Investigating Officer sent a ruqa Ex. PC on the basis of which formal first information report Ex. PC/1 was recorded at police station, Kotwali Kapurthala.

At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the statements made by Excise Inspector Satpal Singh P.W. 1 and Sub-Inspector of Police Rajinder Singh P.W. 2. Both of them fully supported the prosecution case and stated that the pistol Ex. P. 1 and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the Respondent as mentioned earlier. There was hardly any discrepancy in their respective statements and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in our opinion rightly found in favour of the prosecution on this point. However, before her reliance was placed on a Single Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Guljar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra 1976 CLJ 205, wherein it was held that prosecution must establish that the materials brought before the Court should answer the description of the terms ''arms'' and ''ammunition'' as defined in the Arms Act. On this basis, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that since the prosecution had led no evidence on this point, the Respondent was entitled to have the benefit of doubt.

With utmost respect to the learned Judge who decided Guljar Singh''s case (supra) we are unable to endorse the reasoning adopted by him. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Arms Act defines the term ''arms'' as under:

''Arms'' means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence and includes fire-arms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or an ordinary walking-stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons.

Apparently, parts of an arm also fall within the aforesaid definition. Furthermore, Section 2(1)(b) of the said Act defines "ammunition" as meaning ''ammunition for any fire-arm, and includes rockets, shells, missiles and other articles containing or designed or adapted to contain explosives, fulminating or fissionable material or other such thing whether capable of use with fire-arms or not.'' In the instant case, recovery Memo. Ex. PB clearly mentions that the arm recovered was a country-made pistol and the ammunition recovered were live cartridges. Sub-Inspector Rajinder Singh P.W. 2 is a police officer who extensively deals with such materials in the official discharge of his duties. When he appeared as a witness, the statement made by him on this point was not at all challenged on behalf of the Respondent. In the circumstances, we hold that the articles recovered from the Respondent in the instant case did answer the description of the terms ''arms'' and ''ammunition''. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have, therefore, held otherwise.

For the reasons aforementioned, we allow this appeal, convict the Respondent u/s 25 of the Arms Act but in view of the time factor involved impose a fine of Rs. 60 on him on this count. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.