Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
KAKA SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1999
BENCH:
G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan
JUDGMENT:
Nanavati.J.
On 14.5.92, Inspector Sohan Singh alongwith other
police personnel was on patrolling duty. While he was about
three furlongs away from village Barnala and was proceeding
towards village Nangal Kalan, he saw one person going on
foot. On seeing the police, he tried to hide something
which he was holding in his arms. This conduct made Sohan
Singh suspicious and, therefore, he went near him, searched
him and found that he was carrying a single barrel rifle.
As the appellant did not have any licence for possessing a
fire-arm and live cartidges, he came to be challenged and
then prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 5
of the TADA Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution examined Sohan Singh _ PW 3 to prove
its case and also supported the charge by examining other
witnesses. The Designated Court believed the evidence of PW
3 and convicted the appellant.
We have gone through the evidence of PW 3 - Sohan
Singh and we do not find any reason to disbelieve his
version. The rifle had No.68830 written on it. Some words
written on the butt were also noticed. Some words written
on the butt were also noticed. Some slogans were also
written on the butt of the rifle. All these details were
mentioned by Inspector Sohan Singh in the FIR and also in
the recovery memo. Thus there can be no doubt that the
rifle which was produced before the court was the one
recovered from the appellant. As the appellant was proved
to have possessed a rifle and cartidges without a licence,
in the notified area, his conviction under Section 25 of the
Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act is quite proper.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.