Criminal Revision No. 2818 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2818 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.11.2009 Bharpoor Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. RS Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 20.10.2009, whereby upholding the order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, on 8.4.2008, he reduced the sentence from one year to six months imprisonment. The brief facts of the case as are available on record are that on 21.3.2003 when ASI Sarabjit Singh alongwith other police officials was on routine patrolling, he noticed the accused petitioner coming on scooter bearing no. PB08- Y 7867 make Vespa, who on seeing the police party tried to turn back. On suspicion the accused was apprehended. ASI Sarabjit Singh conducted his personal search and recovered one country made .303 bore pistol from the left pocket of the pant of accused which was duly wrapped in a plastic envelope. The pistol was unloaded and one live cartridge was recovered from it and one live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of trouser of the accused petitioner. After completion of all formalities, trial was conducted and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, his conviction was upheld, however, the sentence was reduced from one year to six months. It is against this judgment that the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have gone wrong in convicting the petitioner. The pistol was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for checking and in the absence thereof it has not been proved whether the weapon was in working condition. He has also submitted that the armourer had never taken the permission of the court to open the seal and in such a situation the possibility of tampering the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. Criminal Revision No. 2818 of 2009 (2) Learned counsel also raised argument that no independent witness was associated at the time of alleged search of the petitioner and in the presence of such discrepancies, the petitioner deserves acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper-book. Non-joining of independent witness cannot shatter the prosecution case. It is not the case of the petitioner that the police has not tried to join independent witness, however, when nobody was available in the circumstances there was no other option with the investigating agency but to conduct search. The police recovered one country made .303 bore pistol from the left dub of accused which was duly wrapped in a plastic envelope. When it was unloaded, one live cartridge was recovered and one live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of trouser of the accused petitioner. The prosecution has produced case property Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 in the court which corroborates the recovery part. Recovery of scooter bearing no. PB08-Y 7867 from the petitioner, which he had taken on superdari by moving an application dated 25.9.2003 by furnishing superdari bonds on 8.10.2003 further corroborates the prosecution version. The contention of the learned counsel that the pistol was not sent to FSL has no force as it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had fired from the recovered pistol. Similarly there is no force in the argument that no permission of the court was taken before breaking the seal of the parcel. The court below has rightly observed that during the investigation, the investigating officer need not seek instructions from Ilaqa Magistrate regarding the mode and manner in which the investigations are conducted by him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the police had enmity with him. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the courts below had wrong in convicting the petitioner. There being no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. 3.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge