Malkiat Singh v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025CRA-S/420/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab; CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; decision 16.05.2025; Section 29 Arms Act 1959; punishment for delivering arms to person not entitled; licensed 12-bore DBBL gun No. 19008; murder of Inderjit Singh by Preet Inder Pal Singh alias Sonu; no evidence of delivery of weapon; appellant abroad on ship (Merchant Navy engineer, 6.7.2000–11.11.2000); absence of theft complaint not sufficient to affix guilt; Tarlochan Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 881 applied; Additional Sessions Judge Moga judgment dated 05.02.2004 set aside; acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges framed against him. ¶¶69

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Pb. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment of conviction set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose licensed 12-bore DBBL gun was used in the murder of Inderjit Singh allegedly by Preet Inder Pal Singh alias Sonu, could be convicted under Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 in the absence of evidence that he delivered the weapon to a person not entitled to possess it. +1 more

¶¶64

Court's answer

There is absolutely no evidence of any delivery of the weapon by the appellant; since the murder took place on 10.10.2000 while the appellant was travelling on a ship as a Merchant Navy engineer between 6.7.2000 and 11.11.2000, the question of delivery of the weapon does not arise, and the conviction under Section 29 Arms Act cannot stand.

¶¶64

Ratio / Principle

The failure of the appellant's family members to lodge a complaint regarding theft of the weapon is, by itself, not sufficient to affix guilt on the appellant; guilt must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

¶¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M) — High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (decision 16.05.2025; coram Gurvinder Singh Gill and Jasjit Singh Bedi JJ., Bedi J. authoring). Malkiat Singh, licensee of a 12-bore DBBL gun (No. 19008) recovered from Preet Inder Pal Singh alias Sonu — alleged shooter of Inderjit Singh on 10.10.2000 — had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (05.02.2004) under Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 (RI 2 years, fine Rs.5,000). The Division Bench held that Section 29 requires proof that the licensor delivered the weapon into the possession of another not entitled to possess it; on the record there was no evidence whatsoever of any delivery by the appellant, who was employed as an engineer in the Merchant Navy and travelling on a ship from 6.7.2000 to 11.11.2000, so the question of delivery did not arise. The Court further held that the non-lodging of any complaint by the appellant's family about theft of the gun was by itself not sufficient to affix guilt, which the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Tarlochan Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab, 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 881 (cited by the appellant's counsel and reproduced in extenso), the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him.

¶1

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M)

¶2

#1#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .

¶4

Date of Decision:-16.05.2025

¶5

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M)

Malkiat Singh .

......Appellant.

Vs.

State of Punjab .

¶10

......Respondent.

¶11

CORAM:- HONB’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

¶12

Present:Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶13

Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG Punjab.

¶14

¶15

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

¶16

The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 05.02.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby the accused/appellant was convicted/sentenced of the charges framed against him.

¶17

The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 11.10.2000. The judgment of conviction/sentence was passed on 05.02.2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. The instant appeal was filed on 23.02.2004 and have come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 25 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

¶18

Briefly stated, on 10.10.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. Jaswinder

¶19

VINAY MAHAJAN Singh PW alongwith his cousin Inderjit Singh (now deceased) was going on 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M) #2#

¶21

a scooter and when they reached 1 kilometer ahead on the link road from the main road Moga-Dharamkot, a Maruti car white in colour came from their behind. Two shots were fired from the car towards them. Inderjit singh raised an alarm that he had received a gunshot. By turning his face, he saw the car, which had come parallel to their scooter. O ne person was driving the car while the other was sitting adjacent to the driver seat. He identified the assailant sitting adjacent to the driver seat as Preet Inder Pal Singh alias sonu son of Surjit Singh, shimba by caste, resident of village Lohgarh, who was having a gun in his hand. The driver of the car was aged 20/25 years, medium height and average built whom he could identify if produced before him. Due to the receipt of a gun shot by Inderjit singh, their scooter became unstable and both of them fell down. Inderjit Singh received the gunshot injury on the left side of his back. Then the assailants went away in their car. Thereafter, he went to village Lohgarh and brought a conveyance. At that time, Inderjit Singh was struggling for life. Then he took Inderjit singh to Civil hospital, Moga but on reaching there he succumbed to his injuries. The motive for crime was that in the year 1997, Inderjit Singh and others had given injuries to Preet Inder Pal Singh alias sonu for which a case was registered against them which was pending in the court. Due to this reason, Preet Inder Pal Singh alias Sonu had murdered Inderjit Singh by firing a shot at him.

¶22

During investigation of said case, on 17.10.2000 Surjan Singh resident of village Lohgarh produced Preet Inder Pal Singh allas Sonu before S.I. Rachhpal Singh, who formally arrested him. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered one 12 bore DBBL gun No: 19008, which he had kept concealed under the grass near the electric

¶23

motor in his fields. It was the licenced gun of his uncle Makiat singh accused

¶24

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M) #3#

¶26

in this case. On 14.12.2000. Inspector Kewal singh arrested Malkiat Singh accused under the Arms Act, 1959, who produced before him the licence of 12 bore DBBL gun and the same was taken into possession vide memo, copy Ex. PE attested by ASI Jagroop singh and Piara Singh PW. After completion of necessary Investigation formalities, challan against the accused was presented.

¶27

Charge under Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Jaswinder Singh PW 1. Inspector Kewal Singh, PW 2. ASI Jagroop Singh PW 3 and closed its evidence.

¶28

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting to him all the incriminating material, which he denied. He stated that he was innocent. On the day of the occurrence he was employed as an Electrical Engineer with World Wide Shiping Company, Singapore and was on the ship of the said company from 6.7.2000 to 11.11.2000. He was not in India. He had kept his gun under lock and he had spoken to his son on phone about 10 days prior to the alleged occurrence to clean the gun and place the same under lock but when he came to his village on 12.11.2000, he was told that his son after cleaning the gun, had kept the same under the mattress of the bed lying in a room. He was further told by his wife Ranjit Kaur that on 10.10.2000, Preet Inder Pal Singh had come to their house and she doubted that he had taken away something. On search she came to know that he had taken away his gun. Then she immediately ran after Preet Inder Pal Singh but could not trace him. Lateron she came to know about the incident of the murder. Then S.P.(D) Moga conducted the enquiry and found the aforesaid version to be

¶29

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M) #4#

¶31

true and creditworthy. He himself surrendered before the police in police station, Dharamkot.

¶32

In defence, the accused has examined his wife Ranjit Kaur DW-1 and Harbhajan Singh DW-2. He tendered photostat copy of passport Ex.DA and produced copy of Indian Service Book mark A and Foreign Service Book mark B.

¶33

Based on the evidence led, th e accused c ame to be convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide judgment and

¶34

order of sentence dated 05.02.2004 as under:-

¶35

Offence under	Sentence RI/SI	Fine	RI/SI	in default of
Section			paymen	t of fine
29 Arms Act	RI for 02 Years	Rs.5000/-	RI for 01	Year

¶36

The aforementioned judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶37

During the pendency of the instant appeal, the sentence of the accused/appellant was suspended vide order dated 23.02.2004.

¶38

The Counsel for the appellant contends that no offence under Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 is made out. In fact, the appellant was an engineer in the Merchant Navy and was on the ship between 6.7.2000 and 11.11.2000. As per Section 29 of the Arms Act, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellant had delivered the weapon to Preet Inder Pal Singh who thereafter committed the murder. In the instant case there is no such evidence of delivery of the weapon. On the other hand the defence of the accused that the weapon had been taken away surreptitiously by his nephew Preet Inder Pal Singh who subsequently committed the offence of murder, stands established. He thus contends that the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and the accused be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Reliance is placed on Tarlochan Singh @ VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M)

¶40

#5#

¶41

Rana Vs. State of Punjab 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 881 .

¶42

The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that though the defence of the accused is that he was travelling on the ship and the weapon had been stolen from his house, no complaint was lodged by the family members of the appellant regarding the theft of the weapon and therefore, it can be presumed that the weapon was delivered to the main accused. He, therefore, contends that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

¶43

We have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶44

Before proceeding further it would be apposite to refer to Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959. The same is reproduced as below:-

¶45

“29. Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the same . Whoever-

¶46

¶47

(b) delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the same,

¶48

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [three years, or with fine, or with both].

¶49

14. In Tarlochan Singh @ Rana’s case(supra) the Hon’ble

¶50

Supreme Court held as under:-

¶51

“ 15. Having gone through the record of the case and having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had willingly handed over the fire arm to the co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu in connivance with him to murder the deceased, so as to convict him under Section 29 of the Arms Act. Even though the High Court has acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act.

¶52

16. Section 29 of the Arms Act reads as under :-

¶53

" Section 29- Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the same. -Whoever-

¶54

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

#6#

¶56

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M)

¶57

(a) purchases any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition from any other person knowing that such other person is not licensed or authorised under section 5; or (b) delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the same; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 [three years, or with fine, or with both].

¶58

17. In the light of the prosecution story, the appellant could have been charged with Section 29 (b) but only after it was established by the prosecution that he delivered the fire arm to the co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu, knowingly and deliberately. There is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the fire arm was handed over to the co-accused Gurpreet Singh by the appellant. On the contrary, it appears that the co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu illegally took the licensed fire arm of the appellant without his permission and knowledge and used the said weapon to murder the deceased. Admittedly, the fire arm in question was kept in the farm house which was co-owned by the appellant and co-accused Gurpreet Singh and was taken away from there by co-accused Gurpreet Singh illegally and without permission of the appellant.

¶59

18. This being the factual position, the appellant cannot be charged with Section 29 of the Arms Act and his conviction by the High Court under the said Section is not liable to be sustained and the impugned judgment of the High Court to that extent is hereby set aside.

¶60

19. Once the appellant stands exonerated from offence under Section 120 B IPC by the High Court and Section 29 of the Arms Act by us on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the fire arm was parted by him knowingly and willingly and that it was taken away without his knowledge by the co-accused and used in the commission of an offence, there appears to be no justification to convict and punish the appellant even under Section 30 of the Arms Act. Section 30 of the Arms Act reads as under :-

¶61

" Section 30- Punishment for contravention of licence or rule. – Whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [six months], or with fine which may extend to [two thousand] rupees, or with both."

¶62

20. Since there is no evidence to establish any willful violation by the appellant of any of the conditions of the Act or conditions of a licence or any provision of the Act or any rule, he is liable to be exonerated from the offence of Section 30 as well.”

¶63

Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the prosecution

¶64

was required to establish that the appellant had delivered the weapon into the possession of another without ascertaining whether such other person was entitled to the said weapon. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence of any delivery by the appellant. It is his case that the murder took place on 10.10.2000 whereas he was travelling on the ship between 6.7.2000 to 11.11.2000 being an engineer of the Merchant Navy. Therefore, the question of delivery of the weapon does not arise. Though the defence has

¶65

VINAY MAHAJANnot been able to establish that a complaint regarding the theft of the weapon 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

#7#

¶67

CRA-S-420-SB-2004(O&M)

¶68

was lodged by the family members of the appellant, that by itself is not sufficient to affix guilt of the appellant which the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt.

¶69

In view of the above, we find considerable merit in the present appeal and, therefore, the judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶70

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶71

May 16, 2025 Vinay

¶72

*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes/No*
*Whether reportable*	*Yes/No*

¶73

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.16 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order of sentence dated 05.02.2004 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant of the charges framed against him (S.29 Arms Act — RI 2 years, fine Rs.5,000, default RI 1 year).¶¶16
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga · 05.02.2004
Prior proceeding
FIR registered on 11.10.2000 in respect of the occurrence of 10.10.2000.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Occurrence of 10.10.2000: two shots fired from a white Maruti car at Jaswinder Singh PW and Inderjit Singh while they were on a scooter on the link road off the Moga-Dharamkot main road.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Inderjit Singh sustained a gunshot injury and succumbed to his injuries on reaching Civil Hospital, Moga.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Alleged motive: in 1997 Inderjit Singh and others had given injuries to Preet Inder Pal Singh alias Sonu in a case pending in court.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
During investigation, on 17.10.2000 Surjan Singh produced Preet Inder Pal Singh alias Sonu before S.I. Rachhpal Singh, who formally arrested him.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
On interrogation, Preet Inder Pal Singh suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered a 12-bore DBBL gun No. 19008 concealed under grass near an electric motor.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
The recovered gun was identified as the licensed gun of the accused Malkiat Singh (uncle of Preet Inder Pal Singh).¶¶23
Prior proceeding
On 14.12.2000 Inspector Kewal Singh arrested Malkiat Singh under the Arms Act, 1959; his gun licence (Ex. PE) was taken into possession.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Charge framed against the accused under Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined three witnesses (Jaswinder Singh PW1, Inspector Kewal Singh PW2, ASI Jagroop Singh PW3) and closed its evidence.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; he denied the incriminating material and pleaded alibi (abroad on ship 6.7.2000–11.11.2000).¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Defence evidence: accused examined his wife Ranjit Kaur DW-1 and Harbhajan Singh DW-2, tendered photostat copy of passport Ex.DA and service books.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Instant appeal filed on 23.02.2004; came up for final hearing after more than 25 years from registration of the FIR.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the appeal, the sentence of the accused/appellant was suspended.¶¶37

Malkiat Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkiat Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana

Harjinder Kaur Vs State Ofpb.

Heera Lal Yadav Vs State of Pb

Preet Inder Pal Singh Alias Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Dina Nath Vs State of Hy.

Partap Singh Vs State Ofpb.Etc.