State of Rajasthan vs Gurmeet Singh and Another

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dared 3.6.1987 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, in Cr. Case No. 206/84 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh for the offence u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1959) and also acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh for the offence u/s 30 of the Act of 1959.

It arises in the following circumstances:

That on 29.7.1982 A.S.I. P.W. 3 Saddique Mohammed along with other police officials of P.S. Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar, at about 6.20 P.M reached on the road running from Shri Ganganagar to Padampur, and found one Sardar having 12 bore gun and 2 live cartriges for which he was not having licence and at that time he was shooting pigeons. Thereafter, that 12 bore gun alongwith two live cartridges were seized through Fard Ex.P.l and F.I.R. Ex.P-3 was chalked out and after obtaining sanction in Ex.P. 5, police came to the conclusion that the accused respondent Gurmeet Singh committed offence punishable u/s 25 of the Act of 1959 and since accused respondent Iqbal Singh was licencee of that gun, but he gave it to another accused Gurmeet Singh, therefore, he also committed offence u/s 30 of 1959 Act, and, challan was filed against both the accused respondents.

Learned Magistrate on 30.1.1986 charged the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh for the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act and accused respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh u/s 30 of the Arms Act, but both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After recording the prosecution evidence and statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused respondents, learned Magistrate through his judgment and order dated 3.6.1987 acquitted both the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them inter alia holding:

Since accused respondent No. 2 was licencee of gun, and, if it was temporarily given by him to accused respondent No. 1, who was his nephew, therefore, in these circumstances, possession of that gun with accused respondent No. 1 did not make out any offence.

Aggrieved from judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.1987, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and in this appeal learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of State has submitted that 12-bore gun and 2 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh, therefore, it is a clear cut proved case for offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act as he was having gun without licence, and, simultaneously, the accused respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh contravened the conditions of the licence, therefore, offence is also made out against accused respondent No. 2, for offence u/s 30 of the Act of 1959, and, thus, both the accused respondents should have been convicted for the offences for which they were charged.

On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the caused respondents that the findings of the learned Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of facts and law, and, therefore, appeal be dismissed.

I have heard both and perused the record.

P.W.1 Virendra Singh, who was A.S.I., P.W.3 Saddique Mohammed and P.W.4 Mohammed Idris have admitted following facts:

(i) that the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh was found with gun for which he was not licencee;

(ii) that they did not saw accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh using that gun;

(iii) that he was aiming the said gun at pigeons: and

(iv) that accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh told that the gun belonged to his uncle (respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh) who had gone to latrine.

Thus, from the above evidence it appears that at the time when gun was seized from the possession of the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh, it was not being used by him. There is no dispute on the point in this case that the accused respondent No. 2 was validly licence holder of the gun in question.

On the above facts, if learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that since accused respondent No.l was having temporarily possession over the said gun, no offence was committed by him, simultaneously no offence was committed by accused respondent No. 2, by doing so learned Magistrate had committed no mistake in arriving at the said conclusions.

In my considered opinion, findings of the learned Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of facts and law, and, if the licencee of the gun goes out for shooting purpose along with his friend or relative and during this transit period if the friend or relative keeps the gun with him, in these circumstances, so-called temporary possession would not make out the case punisable either u/s 25 or u/s 30 of Act of 1959.

Thus, in the present case, possession of the gun with the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh should be treated as possession of respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh licencee of the gun. Apart from this, using of licence gun of his uncle for not any illegal purpose cannot be termed as possessing of an arm without licence.

In theses circumstances, the findings of the learned Magistrate by which both the accused respondents were acquitted are liable to be confirmed and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, this State appeal is dismissed after affirming the judgment and order dated 3.6.1987 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, in Cr. Case No. 206/84.