AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the sentence and conviction of the appellant under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is: On 1.01.1989 ASI Prem Sagar along with H.C. Karnal Dutt and other police officials attached to the police station of Jagraon was going towards the village Dalla. When the party reached near the turning of the road towards village Dalla at about 3 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from the side of the canal hank. On seeing the police party the appellant sat down and pretended to pass urine. This aroused suspicion. When he was apprehended he was found in possession of one .12 bore country-made pistol which was taken from him from the left dub of his pyjama. On unloading the pistol, it was found to contain one live cartridge in its chamber. The recovered pistol and cartridge were taken into possession under a memo. Thereafter an FIR was registered and the appellant was charged under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987. In support of the prosecution Prosecution Witness 2 and Prosecution Witness 4 namely Head Constable Kamal Dutt and ASI Prem Sagar were examined to prove the seizure. Prosecution Witness 1 was examined to speak to the facts that the pistol was in a working condition while Prosecution Witness 3 proved the sanction accorded by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana.

(2.) The defence was one of mere denial. The designated court after closely examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses contained no discrepancy or infirmity and it fully corroborated the charge. It was further held that the prosecution witnesses had no enmity towards the accused. Accordingly, the accused (the appellant) was found guilty under Section 5 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs 1,000.00 with a default clause.

(3.) In this appeal before us the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urges the following points: Though the seizure of the pistol was made under a memo the prosecution had not established that the pistol was kept sealed in proper police custody. Besides this, there is absolutely no justification for sending the pistol on May 16 for examination to find out whether the seized pistol was in a working condition. As a matter of fact this court had occasion to comment upon such delays in Baldev Singh V/s. State of Punjab. In that ruling it was held that the delay in sending the firearm for obtaining the expert opinion would enable the court to disbelieve the expert evidence. If the same principle is applied to the facts of the case it will follow that the case of the appellant that he was innocent would stand clearly proved. This important aspect of the matter had been lost sight of by the designated court. There is every possibility that the pistol has been substituted in view of the long delay between the seizure and sending of the pistol for finding out whether it was in working condition.