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

PETITIONER: JARNAIL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/11/1998

BENCH: G.T.  NANAVATI, S.  RAJENDRA BABU.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J. The appellant has been convicted by  the  Designated Court,  Sangrur,  in  Special  Sessions  Case No. 75 of 1992 (Sessions Trial No. 265 of 1994) under  Section  25  of  the Arms  Act  and  Section  5  of  the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 1987. He has filed this  appeal Challenging  his  conviction  and  order  of sentence passed against him. What is held proved by the Designated Court  against the appellant is that he was found in possession of a Double Barrel Gun  bearing  No.    294  without a permit/licence to possess the  same.    The  Designated  Court  believed   the evidence of  Head  Constable Mall Singh (P.W.  2) and A.S.I. Baldev Singh (P.W.  3) both of whom were the members of  the police  party  which  had  intercepted the appellant and had found the appellant in possession of the  said  gun.    They have  stated  in  their evidence that the gun was in working condition.  It was that type of gun in which gun  powder  is required  to  be  filled  in first before it could be fired. They were not cross-examined as regards working condition of the gun. What is contended by the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant  is  that  as  the  identity  of  the  gun was not established and no evidence of an expert was  led  to  prove that  it  was  in working condition by test firing the same, the appellant ought not  to  have  been  convicted  for  the offences alleged  against  him.  In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention because the type of  gun  which was  found  from the appellant was ’Mujhal or ’Toredar’ gun. As we have pointed out earlier this type of gun can be fired by first filling it with gun powder.  In respect of  such  a weapon no further test firing was necessary in order to find out whether  it  was in a working condition or not.  Once it was found by the Police Officer that the  mechanism  was  in order.   It  could  be  reasonable  inferred  that it was in working condition.    Therefore,  even  in  absence  of  any evidence  of  an armourer or an expert of that type evidence of a Police Officer who is trained in handling guns  can  be accepted.   We,  therefore, confirm the conviction and order

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

of sentence passed against him.  The appeal is dismissed.