LexPABITAR SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
948
PABITAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF BWAR
March 22, 1972
[A. N. GROVER AND M. H. BEG, JJ.J
Indian Arms Act (UV of 1959), ss. 25 and 35-Premises in joint
0CcU11ation of two ot'rsons-Gun concealrd in one room'-Conviction ,,f
One of the perso.'ls-Yalidity.
B
The appellant and another, Loco employees of the Railway, were in
joint occupation of certain quarters consisting of · a bed-room and a
kitchen.
They were char~ed with offences under ss. 25 and 26 of the
C
Indian Arms Act, 1959. The trial court convictejl"both the accused. The
first appellate Court coovicted the appellant but acquitted the othi:r
accused.
In revision by the- appe1lant, the High Court set aside his con-
viction under s. 26, but up~ld his coiviction U'lder s. 25, on the bas:s
that a J?Un was found i n:Side the kitchen ~room· in which the - appellant
concealed himself bolting the room from inside, and that the appellant
was the sole occupant of that room at the time when the' police raided the
D
premises.
Allowing the ·appeal to this Court,
HELD : (I), Th• Courts below h•d not considered the P.rooecution
evidence in the light of the gross exaggeratio, which had been 1ntroduoed
about the door nl tho kitchen-room having been bolted or chai"ed from
inside by the appellont. Once that vital'fact is disbelieved !he ent're story
.c;f the apoellan· havi.1~ concealed himself in that room had to be rejected. t
!953 C.El
(2) On Ibo evidence, the quarters m.u•t be held to be In the join~
possession of both the accused.
U.1der s. 35 of the Act wluch was never
considered by the courts below where any arms or ammunition are Or
is 1ound in any premises in he joint oxupation or u.1der the joint con ..
trol ni: several J)Cfsons, ea.ch oi such persons in respect of whom Jnere
is rra.,ntJ to believe that he was aware of the txistcnce of the arms and
F
ammunition in the premises unless the contrary ·is proved wiJl be liable
for tne offence under s. 25 { l) of bei.1g in possession df an unhce .. sed
fite arm.
But, in the preseat; case the prosecUtion had -not established
the essentiW ingredients of the offence in the light of the prov15.ons of
s. 35.
As the ~u.1 was concealed in such a manner that it was not
visible to the naked eye, it could not be urged that when the
appe1Jant
was using the kitchen he would be aware of its existence in that rocm.
(953 F-Hl
G
(3) In cases of this nature involvin.~e liberty and care~r of a citizen
.s:reat care and attention .should be devO'led by the courts to all questions
or Jaw and tact. 954 A-BJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
128 of 1969.
Aop~I by Sp~cial Leave from the judgment and order dated
February 6, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisicn
No. ,541 of 1968.
H
PABITAR SINGH v. BIHAR (Grover, J.-)
949
A
S. C. Agrawala and V.".J. Francis, for the appellant.
U. P. Singh, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a
judgment qf the Patna High Court.
Originally two persons
B
Paoitar Singh (the present appellant) and Ram Ashray Sharma
who were both Loco employees of the Railway were tried under
~ 25 and 26 of the Indian Arms Act 1959, hereinafter called the
"Act".
The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found each one of
them guilty under both the sections.
The sentence imposed was
3 years rigorous imprisonment under s. 26 and one year's rigorous
"imprisonment under s. 25 of the Act.
The sentences were to run
C
concurrently.
The.convicted persons filed an appeal to the court
of Seisions.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, who heard the
appeal found the appellant guilty under both the sections of the
Act.
He maintained the sentence imposed on him.
Ram khray
Sharma was given the benefit of doubt ana acquitted.
Pabitar
Singh moved the High Court in revision.
His conviction under
D
s. 26 of the Act was set aside by the High Court but his conviction
and sentence under s. 25 of the Act were upheld.
E
F
G
H
It is necessary to state a few facts.
The appellant and Ram
Ashray Sharma were in joint occupation of quarter No. 490-A of
the Loco Colony at Gaya.
Some confidential information was
conveyed by Bishrampore police station to the Kotwali police
station nt Gaya that stolert properties connected with a dacoit}'
were lying concealed in the
aforesaid
auarter.
Conseauent\y
Rama Shankar Upadhyay Station House Officer, Gaya Kotwali
pQlice stationExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.