Possession for arms without permit is illegal, but this illegality requires to proven by following the appropriate procedures and the mandated code of conduct. This was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA, in the matter of AMIR alias SALEEM & ORS V. STATE dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed seek setting aside of the judgment dated 6th November, 2019 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of the learned CMM dated 31st January, 2019 convicting the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 5th February, 2019 directing them to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of ₹1000/ each. Petitioner contends that the material witness of the prosecution Inspector Sunil Kumar to whom the information was passed and on whose directions the raiding team was constituted was not examined before the Court. The sanction granted by the DCP concerned is without application of mind for the reason pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner was not placed before the sanctioning authority.
State has taken this Court to the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and contends that there is no error therein and no case for reduction of the sentence is also made out. The sanction was granted by the competent authority after going through all the material documents and the exhibits are not required to be sent to the sanctioning authority for grant of sanction. Case of the prosecution based on the statement of the witnesses is that on 23rd March, 2017 upon receipt of secret information.
Contention of counsel for the petitioner that public witnesses were not associated and hence the Police witnesses should not be believed deserves to be rejected. As held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2009) 7 SCC 178 Karamjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are Police officials. In support of the contention regarding harshness of the sentence awarded, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Samir Ahmed, Rafiq Ahmed Ansari Vs. State of Gujarat.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Delhi High court finds no error in the impugned judgment of conviction as also no ground to modify the order on sentence. Petition and application were accordingly dismissed as a perusal of the nominal roll of the three petitioners revealed that except Shahjad the two other accused have other multiple involvements including in serious offences. Further, the manner in which the three accused were coming down together armed with the pistols along with live cartridges, it is evident that the purpose of possession was for some unlawful activity.