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.