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

PETITIONER: RAJARAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/04/1993

BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) SAWANT, P.B. SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR  846            1992 SCC  (3) 634  JT 1992 (4)   290        1992 SCALE  (2)103

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                            ORDER RAJARAM v. STATE OF M.P. 1.   This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive  Activities (Prevention) Act.  The appellant  was tried  for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) of  the TADA  Act and also under Section 25 of the Arms  Act,  1959. The  Designated Court convicted him under Section 25 of  the Arms Act only and sentenced him to undergo six months’ RI. 153 2.   The prosecution case is that on October 18, 1986,  Hari Chand PW 2 accosted the appellant and recovered from him  an unlicensed firearm.  The panchnama was prepared and  charge- sheet was lodged. 3.   In statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused  denied the  offence  and  pleaded not guilty.  In  his  defence  he examined DW 1 who deposed that the recovery was effected  at the  instance of one Khazan Chand but he also admitted  that appellant  and three others were summoned by the police  and they  were required to produce the proof of their  innocence and  that  the illicit arms did not belong  to  them.   This defence  is  held to be an afterthought and  the  Designated Court has given ample reasons for rejecting the same. 4.   The  only  other  submission  put  forward  before  the Designated  Court  is that the official witnesses  were  all interested  and  the  case has been foisted.   There  is  no presumption  that  the evidence of  the  official  witnesses cannot be relied upon. 5.   By the Amendment Act 39 of 1985 the minimum sentence of one year is prescribed for unlawful possession of a  firearm without a licence.  In the instant case, as provided in  the proviso,  the  Designated Court has  given  special  reasons though not very satisfactory and awarded six months’ RI.  We see  no  ground  to  interfere.   The  criminal  appeal   is dismissed.

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

154