High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 09 RAJ CK 0012

Gurnam Singh s/o Shri Darshan Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 6 September 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pradeep Nandrajog
CASE NUMBER
339 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 368 words
1.

An unserviceable firearm was recovered from the petitioner.

He had no licence. Convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 3 / 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 the petitioner has been

sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 1 year.

2.

Notwithstanding PW-2 and PW-4, independent witnesses to

the recovery turning hostile, the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6

establishes the recovery and if I look at the testimony of the

Malkhana In-charge (PW-1), it proves that after it was seized the

firearm was deposited in the Malkhana on the same day. The

firearm was unserviceable.

3.

The date of the recovery is 27.01.1992.

4.

The petitioner was an ex-serviceman and probably came in

the possession of an unserviceable firearm. Learned counsel for

the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the proviso to sub-

section (1-B) of Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, as per which

for reasons to be recorded the Court may impose a sentence of

imprisonment for a term of less than 1 year. In the decision

reported as 2017(2) SCC 198, Mohd. Hashim vs. State of U.P. &

Ors . the Supreme Court held that the benefit of probation can be

extended to an accused who commits a crime for which a

minimum sentence is prescribed but discretion is left with the

Court to award a lesser sentence, which in the exercise of the

discretion could be Nil.

5.

Of course, adequate reasons being to be recorded.

6.

The petitioner served the country as a member of a para-

military force and in the judicial file he filed certificates of

commendation. He has no history of indulging in any form of

crime. The firearm was unserviceable. It could not be used

without being repaired. 27 years have elapsed. The petitioner has

suffered a jail sentence of 10 days.

7.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court noted

hereinabove I grant benefit of probation to the petitioner and

therefore suspend the sentence requiring the petitioner to furnish

a bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court to maintain peace and harmony and not indulge in any

criminal activity for a period of 1 year.