-1- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 04, 2010. Zile Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Ravi Karan Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Zile Singh (petitioner) was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 468, 471 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') vide its judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 25.10.2001. Under Section 468 of the Code, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- -2- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for seven days. Under Section 471 of the Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for seven days. Under Section 511 of the Code, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for three days. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 25.10.2001 passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.2.2003. In this petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and the sentence order. I have heard Mr. Ravi Karan Dahiya, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. Shorn off all unnecessary details, the petitioner's Arms Licence No.223/VDS was valid upto 31.12.1980. He had to renew it before the term of validation of licence expired. As per the existing law, the arm licence is required to be renewed after every three years. -3- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. The petitioner applied for renewal of the licence before the competent authority at Sonepat. on 2.1.1991, showing that his licence was valid upto 31.12.1990. The licence has been placed on record as Exhibit P.1. The petitioner had tampered with the year 1980 to make it 1990. The petitioner had forged the said document by changing the number 8 to 9. He presented the licence along with his application (Exhibit P.A) to the competent authority on 2.1.1991 for renewal of the same knowing fully well that the same was a forged document. Thus, by presenting the forged document as genuine, the petitioner tried to cheat the competent authority by dishonestly inducing it to make an entry for making the said licence valid for a further period. The prosecution proved its case by producing Dharampal, Passport and Licencing Assistant (P.W.1), Kamlesh Kumari, Steno to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonepat (P.W.2), Suresh Kumar Goyal, Assistant State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh (P.W.3), Inspector Samay Ram (P.W.4) and Retired Assistant Sub Inspector Pirthi Singh (P.W.5). The petitioner, besides pleading innocence simpliciter, could not lead any evidence to rebut the case as set up by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of addressing arguments, could not lay any serious challenge to the case of the prosecution, which otherwise stands proved on record by the evidence led by the prosecution. It stands proved -4- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. on record that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the licence on 2.1.1991 by tampering with the year 1980 to make it 1990 in the licence in order to show that his licence was valid upto 31.12.1990. The petitioner had forged the licence by changing the number from 8 to 9 in the year 1980 as his licence was valid upto 31.12.1980. He presented the licence along with his application (Exhibit P.A) to the competent authority for renewal of the same knowing fully well that it was a forged document. The petitioner has, thus, rightly been convicted for the aforesaid offences. Consequently, conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 511 the Code, as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court is maintained. However, considering the facts that the petitioner is now about 77 years old; that he has already undergone incarceration for about two months; and that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for more than 19 years as the matter relates to January, 1991, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served to send the petitioner to jail again at this stage and the ends of justice will be adequately met with if the maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year awarded to the petitioner for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 511 the Code, as the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, is reduced to the period already undergone by him without altering -5- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. the sentence of fine for the said offences and the default clause. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this revision petition is dismissed. However, before parting with this judgment, I feel constrained to observe that India's domestic policy on small arms and light weapons, which is regulated under the Arms Act (1959) and the Arms Rules (1962) is basically the extension of the policy under the Arms Act and the Arms Rules of 1878 passed during the British Regime. The sole purpose of this Act was to prohibit Indians to acquire firearms so as to neutralize any possible threat of a fresh armed mutiny from Indian Freedom Fighters. The intelligentsia of that time had condemned the Arms Act of 1878 as Blackest. Unfortunately, till now, after more than sixty two years of independence, instead of making the Arms Act / Arms Rules citizen friendly, the policy makers in the Government kept on making policies in such a way so as to make it toughest for law abiding citizens to legally acquire and keep the arms. In fact, this myopic approach has not only rendered civilians helpless for their personal defence but also indirectly made the job of criminals - anti social elements - terrorists easy. The free flow of illegal firearms and their use against the civilians, Military/ Law Enforcement Agencies/ State Police remained unchecked. The possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny. One of the myopic approach under the Arms -6- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. Act of 1959 and the Arms Rules of 1962 which has made it toughest for the citizens to maintain arms is to get the arms lincences renewed from the competent authority after every three years. On the one hand the policy of compulsorily getting the arms licences renewed after the prescribed period mentioned in the licence for three years, whichever is earlier, puts the holders of licences to hardship and inconvenience as they have to comply with a number of formalities before applying for renewal of licences in advance of the expiry dates of licences and then to wait for the renewal of licences, on the other hand, it wastes a lot of time of the agencies handling the renewal of licences. The evidence, surveys and other data suggest that armed citizens are very responsible in using arms to defend themselves. Only the criminals violate rules and do not respect the imaginary boundaries of law. Despite India's stringent regulation of arms transfers, exports and imports, India still faces the problem of weapons which are smuggled into the country by various anti-national groups. The markings and types of weapons confiscated / recovered from various criminals indicate that these are brought into India through illicit channels from outside the country. A great amount of crude “country made” weapons are also found to be produced clandestinely in India. In fact, acquiring country made weapons has become very easy for the criminals. All small arms manufactured in India are uniquely -7- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. marked by stamping to indicate the registration number, manufacturer/factory of origin and the year of manufacture. This applies to arms that are produced for private/personal use and those which are used by armed forces, police or paramilitary forces. Allotment of these registration numbers for the armed forces/police and paramilitary forces is done centrally and a record is maintained of these registration numbers along with the indent. This provides a double check on the records. A record of each and every weapon manufactured by the factory is kept along with the information on the concerned dealer. Arms which do not bear specified identification marks may not be sold or transferred. Further, any person found in possession of a weapon without identification marks would be presumed to have removed/obliterated the marks unless proved otherwise. Besides, all ordnance factories maintain detailed records of small arms manufactured by them. Private firms and persons authorized to manufacture firearms against licences issued under the Arms Rules of 1962 are required to maintain a Manufacturing Register which records information, including serial numbers and date, month and year of manufacture. A designated Inspecting Officer inspects these registers regularly. A record of arms sold in the civilian market is also required to be kept by each arms dealer. These records are regularly checked by the concerned State/District authorities. Still further, every Police Station maintains a register of the licence holders in its jurisdiction, -8- Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003. with the name of the licencee, description of the weapon and its purpose. This list is updated from time to time. Any police officer or other officer specially empowered on this behalf by the Central Government can demand the production of licence from the person carrying firearm or ammunition. The licencee is required to inform the licencing authorities of the change of the place of residence. Keeping in view these facts and without dilating any further on the issue, I am of the view that the requirement of getting the licences renewed after every three years needs to be done away with. The law should be such as may repose confidence in the armed citizens that they are presumed to be responsible in using arms to defend themselves. One such measure in this regard would be to amend the Arms Act, 1959 / the Arms Rules of 1962 suitably to prescribe that arms licneces are required to be renewed after every ten years. I would suggest that the concerned department of the Union Government may take necessary steps in this regard. The Registry is directed to hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the Union of India in this Court for onward transmission to the concerned quarters and necessary action. March 04, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE