9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o challenge his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 6 of the Act and the sentence of RI for two years and fine of ₹ 500 awarded therefore. 2. The prosecution case was that during the early hours of April 7, 1986 i.e at about 3.15 or 3.30 a.m. PW 4 Sub-Inspector Tika Ram along with Head Constable PW 3 Hans Raj and other policemen were doing Nakabandi near the culv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncriminating articles from him. PW 1 Head Constable Charan Das was examined to prove that the gun was in a working condition and the caps and gunpowder were fit for use in the gun. PW 2 was a Reader attached to the Court of the District Magistrate, Faridabad. 4. The appellant, while denying the prosecution case and the recovery of the gun and other articles from him, set up a plea that he and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the light of Sections 6 and 9 of the Act. Section 6 lays down that if in any area notified by the State Government under the Act a person contravenes any provision or rule made under the Arms Act, the Explosives Substances Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Inflammable Substances Act then he is liable to enhanced punishment as provided for in the section. Section 9 lays down that notwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant for the offence for which he stood charged. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that based on the evidence of the police officers alone a conviction ought not to have been awarded to the appellant. This contention overlooks the fact that the appellant was apprehended in the early hours of the morning in a lonely road and in such circumstances it is not possible for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
