Crl.Rev No. 3119 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No. 3119 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 Karnail Singh alias Kulwant Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr.Advocate, Advocate, with Mr.Saqib Ali Khan,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Baljinder Sra, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate, for the complainant. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Vide judgment 26.08.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Barnala, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced under sections 325, 323, 506 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Their appeal was also dismissed on 19.9.2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. At the very outset, counsel for both the parties have urged that with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have compromised the matter and a compromise deed has been reduced Crl.Rev No. 3119 of 2010 2 into writing and signed by the parties in this regard. Therefore, the offences under sections 325, 323 and 506 IPC be compounded. As regard the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act, counsel for the petitioners has urged that from the evidence led by the prosecution the same is not proved against the petitioners. Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that occurrence took place on 3.08.2004, whereby these two petitioners were challaned for causing injuries to Hakam Singh son of Mangal Singh. It has been stated that on 3.8.2004 at 6.30 AM Karnail Singh Singh alias Mangal Singh armed with gandasa and Jagtar Singh son of Mohinder Singh armed with .12 gun were standing in the field, whereupon Jagtar Singh raised a lalkara that they should not be spared on which Karnail Singh inflicted gandasa blow from the reverse side on the ankle of right foot of Hakam Singh, whereas Jagtar Singh gave a butt blow of .12 bore gun on the knee of Hakam Singh. Evidence and circumstances reveal that no shot was fired from the gun in the occurrence. The gun is stated to be owned by Karnail Singh and allegedly used by Jagtar Singh but apparently from the allegations, it transpires that no fire was shot from the gun. Recovery of gun is also doubtful. Witnesses to the recovery of gun namely Makhan Singh and Mohinder Singh were not examined to prove recovery of alleged gun from Jagtar Singh. Even otherwise, recovery memo having been signed by the accused Jagtar Singh being the statement before the police is hit by the provisions of Crl.Rev No. 3119 of 2010 3 section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, Ex.D.1 is the report submitted by District Magistrate after long inquiry regarding cancellation of licence while licence holding that could not be cancelled. Therefore, in such circumstances District Magistrate appears to have not applied his mind while making a contradictory opinion while granting sanction for his prosecution. Resultantly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court under section 27 of the Arms Act qua Jagtar Singh is not sustainable. Resultantly, while holding that accused Jagtar Singh was not guilty of the charge under section 27 of the Arms Act, I am left with the offence under sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC. In that regard, parties have compromised vide compromise deed ex.A.1. Therefore, I order to compound the aforesaid offence. Resultantly, this petition is accepted. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below, are set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against hem and fine, if any, deposited by them be refunded. (A.N.Jindal) 12.09.2011 Judge rp