Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the present revision petition, the accused challenged the judgment of conviction, for carrying licensed weapon outside allowed jurisdiction, passed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’). He also challenged the order of sentence whereby he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth, J., held that it was not reasonable to infer that he had willfully committed an offence by carrying the weapon in an unauthorized area without requisite permission considering that he travelled a short distance of approximately 100 yards into Chandigarh and that he was asleep during the journey. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted him of all the charges.
Background
In September 2016, while the police team was on patrolling duty, a wireless message was received from the control room stating that an individual was carrying illegal arms in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (‘CTU’) bus. A naka was subsequently established near the police post where the bus was stopped and passengers were instructed to remain seated. When the accused attempted to deboard the bus, he was apprehended by the police team members and upon inquiry, he disclosed his name.
During the search, he was found in possession of one revolver of .32 bore caliber along with sixteen live cartridges secured on a belt, without holding any valid arms license or permit. He had boarded the bus at Jalandhar and purchased a ticket from the conductor to deboard at Mohali. Consequently, charges were framed against him for offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty but did not lead any defense evidence.
It had been contended that even though the accused possessed a license issued by the Arms and Licensing Authority, Jalandhar, the said license did not authorize him to carry the weapon within the area of Chandigarh.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction was passed by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the Appellate Court.
The accused contended that at most, he committed a technical violation of Section 3(1) of the Arms Act, by remaining asleep on the bus while carrying weapon with him, because it travelled beyond the territorial limits of Punjab, as admitted by the bus conductor and he had valid license for Punjab only. Therefore, it could not be inferred that he had knowledge of possessing the weapon in an unauthorized area, nor did he harbor any such motive.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
Whether carrying a licensed weapon into an area outside its jurisdiction constituted a violation of Section 3(1) of the Arms Act?
With respect to the validity of the license and possession of the weapon, the Court considered the statement of Clerk of the Arms License Branch, District Magistrate, Jalandhar and stated that it clearly established that the license issued in favor of the accused was valid only for Punjab. Further, the Court specified that the accused purchased a ticket from Jalandhar to Mohali, both locations being within Punjab, indicating that at the time of embarking on the journey, there was no intention or element of wrongdoing on the part of the accused. Despite the bus belonging to the CTU and being destined to enter Chandigarh, the ticket was purchased only for a destination falling within Punjab, for which the accused held a valid license issued by the Arms Licensing Authority.
Further, the Court specified that the statements of the witnesses revealed that the accused was suffering from a headache and had requested tablets from the conductor and due to unavailability of the same, the accused fell asleep. Additionally, it could not be overlooked that the prosecution claimed that the police team had prior wireless information from Control Room regarding someone carrying illegal arms in CTU Bus. However, no entries or records relating to such information were produced, nor had there been any testimony detailing when, by whom, or how such intelligence was gathered by the police department concerned, specifically the wireless control room.
The Court noted that the custody certificate which recorded that the accused had undergone custody for a period of four months and twenty-one days during the post-conviction period and that the accused did not have any prior criminal history or involvement in any other criminal case. Thus considering the same, the Court held that in the absence of any proof of prior information, specifically from the wireless control room, or at least a formal entry thereof in the records, it could not be presumed that the prosecution had any credible basis to allege willful disobedience of the provisions of the Arms Act, which was punishable under law.
Whether such an act would justify conviction under the Arms Act in absence of any mens rea?
Considering the short distance of approximately 100 yards into Chandigarh and the fact that the accused was asleep during the journey, the Court opined that it was not reasonable to infer that he had wilfully committed an offence by carrying the weapon in an unauthorized area without requisite permission. The Court emphasized that nothing demonstrated that the accused carried the pistol and live cartridges with any unlawful intent or objective.
Additionally, the Court found that the accused was in possession of a valid arms license for the firearm he carried and according to the allegations, he had entered, during the same journey, only approximately 100 yards into Chandigarh, while seated on the bus from Jalandhar. It was therefore the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce documentary evidence establishing that the location where the accused was apprehended with the firearm actually fell beyond the territorial limits of Punjab. However, the prosecution failed to lead any notification, circular, or government order to demonstrate that the naka was established outside the boundaries of Punjab. In the absence of such evidence, it could not be presumed that the area where the firearm was recovered fell beyond the jurisdiction of Punjab.
Thus, the Court observed that the accused was innocent of the charges and was entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgments and acquitted the accused of all charges.
[Amritpal Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), CRR No.2878 of 2022(O&M), decided on 15-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
For the Respondent: Vaibhav Mittal, A.P.P.
