http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JAGTAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/04/1996

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (3)612

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T HANSARIA,J.      The appellant  has been  convicted under  section 25 of the Arms Act read with section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)  Act, (for  short  ’TADA’).  It  has pained us  to know  that  despite  he  having  a  full-proof defence, it  has come to be rejected by the Designated Court on the ground that it was "an after thought". The appellants defence was that the .315 bore rifle, which was said to have been recovered  from his  possession on  25.5.1990,  was  to bolster up  a false  case against him under section 307 IPC, and the  weapon was  in fact  one which  was licenced in the name of  Avtar Singh, a partner of the appellant in a liquor business, and  was taken possesson of on 23.5.1990, to prove which Avtar  Singh was  examined  as  DW.1.  The  Designated Court, however,  regarded the  defence as "an after thought" because prosecution  witnesses had  not been asked about the same by  giving any suggestion to them in cross-examination. We are  afraid the Court made an apparent error in saying so inasmuch as  PW.1, SI  Gurinder Singh, who deposed about the recovery  of   the  arm   from  the   appellant,  had   been specifically asked  that the  rifle was licenced in the name of Avtar  Singh; and  PW.2, SI  Karnail Singh  was suggested that the  rifle in  question belonged to Avtar Singh and had taken possession  from him.  It is  a defferent  matter that these suggestions  were denied.  What is more, PW.2 admitted that in  the DDR  (Daily Diary  Report) there was no mention about details  of  the  case  property  recovered  from  the appellant. 2. Nothing  further was  required, according  to us,  to  be asked  to   the  prosecution   witnesses  and   the  learned Additional Judge  committed gross  error  in  rejecting  the aforesaid plea on the ground that it was "an after thought". 3. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and order for the release of the appellant forthwith from jail if not needed in connection with other case.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2