Crl. Rev. No. 3192 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 3192 of 2011 Date of Decision : 20th December, 2011 Gurpreet Singh @ Peeta ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. N. S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Gurpreest Singh @ Peeta accused has filed this revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. According to prosecution version, one 12 bore double barrel gun was recovered from the petitioner-accused, who had no permit or license for the same. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2011 convicted the accused under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appeal preferred by the accused has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide judgment dated 12.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed Crl. Rev. No. 3192 of 2011 -2- the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The accused simply denied the prosecution version and did not lead any evidence in defence. Statements of the prosecution witnesses have been believed by both the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no independent witness was associated at the time of recovery. However, prosecution evidence cannot be thrown away merely on this ground. Official witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner. There is, therefore, no reason to discard their sworn statements. They were not hostile to the accused and had no motive or malice against him to implicate him in false case. Consequently, their statements are as much credible as those of independent witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the armourer tested the gun without firing shot from it and therefore, the gun is not proved to be in working order and is thus not proved to be fire arm. The contention cannot be accepted. Armourer is fire arm expert. He can test fire arms mechanically and opine whether the same are in working order or not. By firing shot from a fire arm, even a layman can find out if the same is in working order or not. Expert opinion is obtained because the expert can give opinion by mechanically testing the fire arm without even firing shot from the fire arm. There is no reason to discard the sworn testimony of Crl. Rev. No. 3192 of 2011 -3- the armourer that the gun recovered from the petitioner is in working order and therefore, a fire arm. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments of the courts below convicting the petitioner- accused. His conviction is well founded and supported by reasons. There is no jurisdictional error or missappreciation of evidence by the courts below. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, fire arms are being misused. In the instant case, the accused-petitioner was found in possession of double barrel gun without permit or license. Consequently, sentence of imprisonment for six months besides fine of Rs.200/- only cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant reduction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine. 20th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE