Raj Pal vs State of Punjab

S.C. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Raj Pal and his wife Shashi Bala were tried for possession of the firearms in question without a licence. While Shashi Bala was acquitted of the charge, Raj Pal was convicted under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to the term of imprisonment and fine. The appeal filed by him having been dismissed, he has preferred the present revision petition.

The prosecution case briefly is that on 28th August, 1980 SubInspector Ranjit Singh PW. 1 accompanied by A.S.I. Gurdas Singh PW 2 raided the house of the petitioner around 10 a.m. At that time, Raj Pal was not present. In the presence of Shashi Bala the house was searched. From a gunny bag 15 revolvers of 32 bore were recovered. These weapons were duly taken into possession. After obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate, the petitioner was challenged.

At the trial, the petitioner denied the recovery of the firearms. No evidence was led in defence.

The conviction of the petitioner rests entirely on the evidence of the above said two official witnesses. Their veracity has been challenged on the ground that the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with. The said provisions require that before making a search, the officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitation inhabitant of such locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search. Emphasis was then laid on the admitted fact that police party passed through Hall Bazar, in Amritsar and the house in question is situated in thickly populated locality. I have been taken through the evidence of SubInspector Ranjit Singh in particular to show that he vaguely stated about the nonavailability of independent and respectable persons. In other words, the noncompliance of the abovesaid provisions, in the facts and circumstances of this case, becomes manifest. In such a situation, learned counsel relied upon Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, 1976 CLR 156 and Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 CLR 438 in support of his contention that the prosecution evidence cannot be said to inspire confidence. Learned counsel for the State emphasized on the recovery of the large number of firearms. Be that as it may, the gravity of the offence cannot be a decisive factor in violating the provisions of law, which have been laid down as mandatory.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against, the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and giving him benefit thereof, I allow the revision petition and acquit him.