Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sher Singh v. State of Punjab - CRA-D-920-db-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 3522 (30 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Appeal No. 920 -DB of 2003

Date of decision:25.5.2006

Sher Singh ..Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 74-DBA of 2004

State of Punjab ...Appellant

Versus

Sher Singh ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMAR DUTT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the complainant.

****

JUDGMENT

Amar Dutt, J.

Appellant-Sher Singh was charged under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for having committed the murder of Kuldip Singh, attempted to cause the death of Dharam Singh and using AK-47 Rifle in the process and thereby violated the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case against the appellant, who is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Punjab Police, is that on 16.8.l999 in the area of village Majri, he while returning from Nizampur to Khanna after taking away AK-47 Rifle, which was issued to his gunman Kuldip Singh, abused him and fired one round on the gunman who was driving the car and two rounds on Dharam Singh, a relation of the gunman-Kuldip Singh, who was accompanying him in the car. At that time, the appellant was accompanied by his wife and child. The details of investigation need not be adverted to by us at this stage. On completion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 14.8.2003 had convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against which appellant-Sher Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No.920-DB of

2003. Since the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in his judgment dated 14.8.2003 did not record any finding in relation to the charge under Sections 25 and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, State of Punjab too had a grievance against the judgment and has challenged the same on account of failure of the Additional Sessions Judge to give any decision in relation to the aforesaid charge through Criminal Appeal No.74-DBA of 2004.

We have heard Ms.Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr.M.S.Sidhu, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.Ashok Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.

Since the judgment of the trial Court is admittedly defective on account of failure of the trial Court to give any finding in relation to the 3rd

and 4th

charge under Sections 27(3)

and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 that have been framed against the appellant, learned counsel for the parties stated that directions will have to be issued to the trial Court to pass a fresh order in relation to the aforesaid charge with liberty to the appellant to challenge the same, if need be, in accordance with law.

In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, Criminal Appeal No.74-DBA of 2004 is accepted and the case remitted back to the trial Court with a direction that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it should pass such orders as it, in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit in relation to charges under Sections 25 and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The needful be done within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, whereafter in case the appellant is dis-satisfied with the conviction and sentence, it would be open to him to challenge the same by filing a fresh appeal. If the conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant again, as the paper book containing entire evidence has already been prepared, the Registry is directed to obtain necessary orders for listing the same for hearing within three months.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.6.2006.

The record of the trial Court be sent forthwith.

(Amar Dutt)

Judge

May 25,2006 (A.N.Jindal)

Pa Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.