Ajmer Singh and another vs Crown

Teja Singh, C.J.—The facts of the case out of which this revision petition has arisen may be shortly stated.

On the ruqqa received from Head Constable Shiv Chand a case under S. 307, I.P.C., and S. 19, Arms Act, was registered against Ajmer Singh & his nephew Boota Singh. The story contained in the ruqqa was that on information being received that certain absconders had taken shelter at the house of one Jowala Singh the Police raided the house. Shortly after that Ajmer Singh & Boota Singh were seen emerging from the house & taking to heels. Boota Singh was carrying a gun and he fired a shot therefrom. The Police returned the fire. On this Ajmer Singh & Boota Singh both returned to Jowala Singh''s house. When the Police reached the house they found Boota Singh in possession of a gun & a few cartridges, Ajmer Singh had on his person an empty cartridge. For reasons which are not clear from the record the challan against Ajmer Singh & Boota Singh when put in Court was only under S. 19, Arms Act. The final report of the Police was that the allegations that the accused had committed an offence under S. 307, I.P.C., were not made out. The trial Magistrate convicted both the accused & ordered them to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each. He also ordered that the gun & the cartridges be confiscated. On appeal the learned Ses. J. set aside Ajmer Singh''s conviction but he upheld the conviction & sentence of Boota Singh. The present petition is both by Ajmer Singh & Boota Singh. The farmer''s contention is that the order of the Courts below in so far as it relates to the confiscation of the gun & the cartridges was illegal & is liable to be set aside. The later contests the propriety of his conviction.

It is admitted that Ajmer Singh had a license granted to him by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana for keeping a gun & cartridges. It is correct that he had no license for the Union, but the Courts below have taken the view that the gun was brought into the Union as a result of a genuine mistake & accordingly they have treated the offence as merely technical. I do not wish to ray anything on this point because after having gone through the whole evidence my opinion is that the case was doubtful & at least in so far as it relates to Boota Singh it is difficult to believe that he was found in possession of a gun or cartridges. It will be remembered that in the ruqqa of Head Constable Shiv Chand, the part ascribed to Boota Singh was that he had fired a gun, but it was true, later on realised that this allegation could not be substantiated by evidence. Now, if all that was stated in the ruqqa was true, and Boota Singh was forced to retrace his steps to Jowala Singh''s house & take shelter there with Ajmer Singh, since it was known that the police were after them, and Boota Singh had no license for keeping a gun even in the Punjab, it is hardly probable that he would keep the gun with him. The evidence is that the gun belongs to Ajmer Singh & in view of the situation in which Boota Singh must have found himself it is only reasonable to suppose that if he had the gun with him at any time he must have returned it to Ajmer Singh. I may also observe here that there was no mention in the ruqqa that when the Police actually got to Jowala Singh''s house they found the gun or cartridges in possession of Boota Singh. Of course this fact is sought to be established by the farad of recovery alleged to have been prepared at the house but it appeal''s to me that this was an after thought. Accordingly I hold that Boota Singh was not found in possession of any of the arms & accepting his petition I set aside his conviction. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.

As regards the confiscation of the gun & the cartridges, since Boota Singh, who alone was convicted by the learned Ses. J., has been found by me to be innocent, the very ground for the confiscation falls through. Moreover, since Ajmer Singh had the licence for keeping a gun in the Punjab & it appears that ho imported it into the territory of the Union by mistake or under a belief that he could carry with him because he was going from one part of Ludhiana District to another, I do not think order for confiscating the gun & the cartridges should have been made even if his conviction or that of his companion Boota Singh had justified. Accordingly I also set aside that part of the order of the Courts below & direct that the gun & the cartridges be given back to Ajmer Singh.