GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition is against the judgment upholding the conviction and sentences of the petitioner under S. 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 to one year's R. I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default, six month R. I.) as passed by the trial court.
(2.) THE petitioner was prosecuted under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. This case is an off suit of sessions case No. 28/75 in which the petitioner stood convicted u/s. 452 IPC and sentenced to 2 year's R. l. with the fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Against the aforesaid conviction, S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 948/76 has been filed. The prosecution case is that the accused petitioner was arrested on 26. 3. 75 in F. I. R. No. 11/75 under Ss. 452 & 307, I. P. C. It is alleged that at 1. 30 at night on 27. 3. 75, the petitioner gave an information to the investigating officer under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is alleged that he got a country made pistol recovered in the presence of Motbirs Ram Karan (PW l), Beni Prasad (PW2), Balbir Singh (PW3 ). The alleged recovery is from a 'bara. ' For the main case, the petitioner was prosecuted u/s 452 & 307, IPC, wherein however, the trial court found that the offence u/s 307, IPC is not made out. The trial court in the main case observed that from the statement of Ram Singh, it cannot be held that accused Ram Lal had the pistol and he can also not be held liable for the fire. I have just now decided S. B. Cr. Appeal No. 848/76 and observed in that case that once it was found that the offence of S. 307, IPC was not made out then importance of subsidiary offence of S. 452, IPC is also undermined and minimised. In the present case, a separate case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under S. 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act on the basis of recovery of the country made pistol. Shri NX. Tibrewal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of five prosecution witnesses including Ram Karan (PW l), Beni Prasad (PW 2), Balbir Singh (PW 3) all of them have not supported the prosecution case of recovery. Only Prabhunarain (PW 4), the investigating officer has supported the prosecution case.
(3.) THE trial court placed reliance upon the evidence of Prabhunarain (PW 4) and convicted the accused by raising presumption under sec. 35 of the Indian Arms Act, sec. 35 reads as under : " 35. Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation of premises in certain cases.- Where any arms or ammunition in respect of which any offence under this Act has been or is being committed are or is found in any premises, vehicle or other place in the joint occupation or under the joint control of several persons each of such persons in respect of whom there is reason to believe that he was aware of the existence of the arms or ammunition in the premises, vehicle or other place shall, unless the contrary is proved, be liable for that offence in the same manner as if it has been or is being committed by him alone. " Shri Tibrewal invited my attention to the evidence of Prabhunarain (PW4), the investigating officer, who in his cross-examination has admitted as under: ********** It is also important that in the cross-examination, he also admitted that when the accused gave information he did not disclose the boundaries of the Bara nor he made inquiry about it, and he did not inquire as to in which direction the 'bara' is located. He is not certain as to whether the 'bara' is having some fencing and he did not remember whether even in the Bara anything was lying in the form of bed (Charpai) or clothes. He did not remember as to whether father and mother of the accused were alive or not, and he did not know as to whether he went to the village by jeep or not. He further stated that he could not say as to whether he went by bullock cart and where these three persons Beni Prasad and Balbir Singh and Ramkaran met him. He did not know the Punch and Sarpanch of the village. ;