Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2002 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2002 Date of Decision:May 01, 2009 Ramesh Kumar Meshi ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Anil Chawla ,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab *** SABINA, J. Ramesh Kumar @ Meshi-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 25(i-B)(a) of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 1.12.2000 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Vide order of even date passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and fine of Rs. 500/-. under the Act. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 16.5.2002. Hence, the present revision Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2002 {2} petition. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the appellate court in para 2 of its judgment are as under:- “The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 25.11.1996, ASY Mulakh Raj of CIA staff Majitha along with ASI Harbhajan Singh, LC Amarjit Singh, C. Satnam Singh C. Ashwani Kumar were present at the bridge of drain on village Tarpaai in connection with search of bad elements where accused Ramesh Kumar alias Meshi was seen coming from village Tarpai on fact. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn back but he was apprehended on suspicion. Personal search of the accused was conducted which led to the recovery of 12 bore gun Number BEC 182/1980 from the gunny bag being carried by him. Two live cartridge of the same bore were recovered from the right pocket of his pent. The accused could not produce any licence for possession of the aforesaid gun and live cartridges. The gun and the live cartridges were taken into possession vide two separate recovery memos. The accused was arrested at the spot. Ruqa was sent to the police Station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. ASI Mulkh Raj prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery, recorded the statements of the witnesses and on return to the police station, the case property was deposited with the MHC. On 17.12.1996, the gun and the cartridges were produced before Head Armour Kuldip Singh who gave his report that the gun was in working condition and the cartridges were intact. After Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2002 {3} obtaining sanction from the district Magistrate, challan was presented against the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below had erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence under Section 25(i-B)(a) of the Act. In fact, the petitioner was in possession of a licensed gun of his uncle Kishori Lal. Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner had failed to establish on record that the gun in question was a licenced gun of his uncle - Kishori Lal. Petitioner was found in possession of 12 bore gun No. BEC 182/1980 on 25.11.1996. Petitioner was carrying the said gun in a gunny bag and on seeing the police party, he tried to run away but he was apprehended on suspicion . Two live cartridges of the same 12 bore gun were recovered from the right pocket of his pant but the petitioner could not produce any licence for keeping in his possession the said 12 bore gun along with two live cartridges of the same. Prosecution in order to prove its case had led oral as well as documentary evidence. The plea taken by the petitioner that gun recovered from him was his uncle’s gun was however not substantiated on record. Petitioner had failed to examine his uncle Kishori Lal or produce on record the gun licence of his uncle or a licence enabling him to keep in his possession the recovered gun along with cartridges. The official witness -Mulakh Raj, PW-1, who had effected the recovery of the gun and live cartridges had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. The said official witness had merely performed his official duty and hence his statement cannot be viewed with suspicion or doubt. Both the courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner under Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2002 {4} Section 25(i-B)(a) of the Act after appreciating the evidence on record. The impugned judgments of the courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner under Section 25(i-B)(a) of the Act call for no interference. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25(i-B)(a) of the Act is maintained. However keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner. Accordingly sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 25(i-B)(a) of Act of the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Petition stands disposed of with the above modification. (SABINA) JUDGE May 01, 2009 PARAMJIT