Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)

2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.R.No.3026 of 2009 (O&M)
Karnail Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 26/03/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
Arms Act, 1959, S.25(1)(B)--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Accused found in possession of .12 bore single barrel gun--Licence of gun was valid only upto 5.6.94--It was not renewed thereafter till gun was recovered on 20.12.2004--Hence, licence was not renewed for more than ten years--Petitioner rightly convicted--He has already undergone four months of sentence--It cannot be said that there was any intention on part of petitioner for not getting licence renewed and rather licence was not renewed inadvertently as he is a illiterate villager--Sentence awarded reduced from six months to period already undergone. (Para 12, 13, 14 & 15)

ARMS ACT,1959

S.25 & 27--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Petitioners not attributed any role in FIR--However in statement before trial Court they have alleged to have armed with weapon--But no injury caused by them--Keeping in view role attributed to petitioners in occurrence and fact that they have been in custody for last one year and two months and also that trial in the case is likely to take time it would be just expedient to grant concession of bail.; Harphool Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 736

ARMS ACT,1959

S.25 & 27--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Petitioners not attributed any role in FIR--However in statement before trial Court they have alleged to have armed with weapon--But no injury caused by them--Keeping in view role attributed to petitioners in occurrence and fact that they have been in custody for last one year and two months and also that trial in the case is likely to take time it would be just expedient to grant concession of bail.; Harphool Singh v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 736

ARMS ACT, 1959

S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693

ARMS ACT, 1959

ARMS ACT, 1959 S.25 and 27--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510