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

PETITIONER: AJAIB SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:                  Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati                  Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kirpal Ms, Suresh Kumari and S.K.Sabbarwal, Advs. for the appellant Kuldip Singh and R.S.Sodhi, Advs. for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgement of the Court was delivered: NANAVATI, J.      The  appellant   has  filed  this  appeal  against  the judgment and  order of  the Add1.  Judge, Designated  court, Sangrur in Special Sessions Case No. 84 of 1989.      During the  nakabandi,  police  noticed  the  appellant moving in suspicious circumstances. One personal search, the appellant was found carrying one .32 bore revolver which was in working  order.  It  was  found  loaded  with  one  empty cartridge and  five  live  cartridges.  He  was,  therefore, prosecuted for  the offence  punishable under  Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the TADA Act.      In order  to prove  its  case,  case,  the  prosecution examined the Investigating Officer - Joginder Singh, who was then an  Inspector of  Police and  PW.2 - Karnail Singh, who was one  of the  recovery witnesses.  Joginder Singh  in his evidence stated  that the  said revolver  was found from the person of  the appellant  and on examination it was found in working order.  He also  deposed that an attempt was made to procure attendance  of two independent witnesses at the time of search  and seizure  but they  were not  available. He is fully supported by the evidence of PW.2 - Karnail Singh.      We do  not find  any infirmity in their evidence. It is difficult to  believe that  the police  could have planted a revolver, as  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant. We have also no reason to doubt competence of the Investigation Officer  to depose  about the condition of the revolver.      In our  opinion, the  trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of  the TADA  Act. The sentence imposed upon the appellant also appears to us reasonable.      The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

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