Dismissed

State of Jammu and Kashmir Th. Station House Officer Police Station Trikuta Naga, Jammu. v. Ranjit Singh

J&K HC4 Jun 2020Crl R/48/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition challenging the discharge of the accused was dismissed. The revision was rejected on the ground that the offence proceeded under Section 302 RPC and the use of a licensed weapon negated the necessity of charging under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition Cr1 R No. 48/2019 and connected matter Cr1M No. 995/2019 were dismissed.

State of Jammu and Kashmir Th. Station House Officer… — Service and Employment | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

¶2

Cr1 R No. 48/2019

¶3

Cr1M No. 995/2019

¶4

Pronounced on:- 4^th .06.2020

¶5

State of J&K .…Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG

¶7

vs.

¶8

Ranjit Singh alias Billa ….Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case titled, ‘State v/s Ranjit Singh and another’.

¶13

The only ground on which this revision petition is filed is that the Trial Court had wrongly discharged the accused under section 3/25 of the Arms Act vide order dated 17.12.2018, while framing the charge under section 302 RPC, against the accused. The charges framed by the Trial Court is self-speaking.

¶14

The accused has been charged for having committed the murder on 07.11.2017 by firing from a licensed revolver. It is thus the use of licensed weapon for committing the offence of murder. The number of accused in this case are two, one out of them has absconded. The weapon has been fired by the accused against whom charge under section 302 RPC have been framed.

¶15

Cr1 R No. 48/2019

¶16

The sanction for filing this revision petition has been given by the Law Department without any application of mind, because the offence is punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act only when the weapon used is not licensed, punishment is only in case of illegal possession of weapon and not against the use of a licensed weapon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in not charging the accused under section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶17

It is also not correct to say that the order of discharge of the accused-Ranjit Singh under section 3/25 of the Arms Act is not justified because it is a licensed weapon used in the commission of offence which stands in the name of Ranjit Singh. No more reason was required while framing the charge because the charge is that, he had fired from the licensed gun and this is sufficient to hold that offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act is not made out.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, this Criminal Revision petition is dismissed, along with Cr1M No. 995/2019.

¶19

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge

¶20

Jammu 4^th .06.2020 SUNIL-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶21

SUNIL KUMAR 2020.06.08 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Jammu and Kashmir Th. Station House Officer Police Station Trikuta Naga, Jammu. v. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Jammu and Kashmir Th. Station House Officer Police Station Trikuta Naga, Jammu. v. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anju Gupta and Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Th . Abhishek Khushwaha Vs Mohan Singh and Anr.

Om Parkash Sharma Vs State of J and K and Ors.

Jahangir Ahmed Vs State Th.Education Deptt.and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs State Th.Medical Education Deptt.and Ors.

Bharti Axa General Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Veeki Devi and Ors.