1998 (9) TMI 694 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Arms & TADA Act Violations, Rejects Double Jeopardy Claim

Mohinder Singh Versus State of Punjab

Mohinder Singh Versus State of Punjab - TMI Issues:1. Conviction under Arms Act and TADA Act based on possession of sten-gun and live cartridges.2. Double jeopardy claim due to previous trial on different charges.3. Trial of multiple offences together under Criminal Procedure Code.4. Evidence requirement for proving possession and identity of seized weapon.5. Acceptance of defense witnesses' testimony.Analysis:1. The appellant was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act for possessing a sten-gun and 12 live cartridges. The Designated Court relied on the evidence of witnesses to establish the possession of the weapon and live ammunition. The court found the sten-gun in working condition and the cartridges live based on expert testimony.2. The appellant argued against being tried again for possession of the sten-gun and cartridges, citing a previous trial where the prosecution evidence was not believed. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this claim, emphasizing that the previous trial was for different offenses, and hence, the appellant could be tried again for the current charges.3. The appellant contended that the offenses under the Arms Act and TADA Act could have been tried together with other charges. The court clarified that Section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows trying multiple offenses together but does not mandate it. The Designated Court's decision to try the offenses separately was deemed legal.4. The appellant raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the custody and handling of the seized weapon. However, both the Investigating Officer and the Armourer identified the weapon and cartridges in court, confirming their authenticity. The court found no doubt about the identity of the weapon, especially since it was in working condition and the cartridges were live.5. The appellant's defense witnesses claimed that he was in police custody before the incident, supported by a Panchayat resolution. However, the Designated Court rejected this defense, noting the absence of a formal complaint about the alleged unlawful detention. The court deemed the police's involvement of the appellant justified and rejected the defense raised.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The court upheld the Designated Court's decision based on the evidence presented and the legal considerations discussed in the judgment.