Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits Man Under Section 25 Arms Act | Punjab-Only Licence Holder’s Inadvertent Entry Into Chandigarh While Asleep Not Deliberate Breach
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth set aside the conviction of Amritpal Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and ordered his acquittal. The Court observed that the petitioner, who held a valid arms licence in Punjab, had boarded a bus and inadvertently crossed into Chandigarh while asleep, carrying his licensed revolver and cartridges. Finding no conscious intent to violate the law and no proof that he had deliberately breached jurisdictional limits, the Bench ruled
The petitioner had been sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000, with an additional 15 days’ imprisonment in default. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
As per the prosecution, on 11 November 2016, at around 9:40 p.m., a wireless message was received stating that an individual was carrying illegal arms in CTU Bus No. CH01-G-5307. Acting on this information, the police established a naka near the Palsora Police Post. The bus was stopped, and passengers were asked to remain seated. When the petitioner attempted to deboard, he was apprehended. A revolver of .32 bore along with sixteen live cartridges was allegedly recovered from his possession. It was alleged that he had no valid license for carrying arms in Chandigarh.
The prosecution examined multiple witnesses. PW1, Retired SI Rajwant Singh, proved the complaint, FIR, site plan, personal search memo, seizure memo, and sketch of the weapon. PW2, HC Het Ram, corroborated and proved the application and sanction order issued by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh. PW3, Duty Inspector Ajit Kumar, testified regarding the bus route. PW4, Devinder Singh, Conductor of the bus, confirmed that the petitioner purchased a ticket from Jalandhar to Phase 6, Mohali, and was asleep when the bus entered Chandigarh. PW6, Hardial Singh, the bus driver, corroborated this account. PW7, Rajinder Kumar, Clerk, Arms Licensing Branch, Jalandhar, confirmed that License No. 20923 was issued to the petitioner for a .32 bore revolver and was valid only within Punjab.
The defence contended that the petitioner had no ill motive, and his entry into Chandigarh with the weapon was accidental as he was asleep during the journey. It was submitted that at most, the act constituted a technical violation of Section 3(1) of the Arms Act. Reliance was placed on Delhi High Court judgments in Sonam Chaudhary v. State and Mohd Tarique Rehman v. State of NCT of Delhi, where convictions were quashed in absence of mens rea or conscious possession.
The prosecution, however, argued that the petitioner did not dispute the facts and failed to lead any defence evidence, thereby justifying the conviction.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth recorded that the undisputed fact was that the petitioner was carrying a .32 bore pistol along with 16 live cartridges. However, the license issued by the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, was valid only within Punjab. The Court observed: “It is an admitted fact that the petitioner boarded the bus at Jalandhar and purchased a ticket from the conductor to deboard at Mohali. The legal issue involved is whether the act of carrying a licensed weapon issued for use within Punjab into Chandigarh constitutes a violation of Section 3(1) of the Arms Act, in the absence of any mens rea.”
The Court noted that prosecution evidence failed to establish prior credible information about the petitioner carrying arms. “No evidence was produced to substantiate that the police had any prior information about the petitioner in specific carrying illegal arms in the CTU bus. This appears improbable and suggestive of an afterthought.”
Referring to PW4 Devinder Singh’s testimony, the Court stated: “The accused boarded the bus from Jalandhar and purchased the ticket for Phase 6 Mohali. After accused boarded the bus none of his activity was suspicious… When the bus reached Mohali, the accused was sleeping in the bus… I did not realise that the accused did not deboard the bus at his stoppage.” The Court found that the petitioner’s conduct was not suspicious and the entry into Chandigarh occurred without intent.
Justice Vashisth also referred to the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Sonam Chaudhary v. State, observing: “The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act must have, firstly, the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession… There is a mental element in the concept of possession.” Similarly, in Mohd Tarique Rehman, it was held that criminal liability required conscious possession and mens rea.
The Court further noted: “Considering the short distance involved and the fact that the petitioner was asleep during the journey, it is not reasonable to infer that he wilfully committed an offence by carrying the weapon in an unauthorized area without requisite permission.” It also recorded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the naka was located within the boundaries of Chandigarh.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth directed that in light of the evidence and applicable legal principles, the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. The Court stated: “Applying the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments to the facts and circumstances of the present case… it cannot be presumed that the prosecution has any credible basis to allege willful disobedience of the provisions of the Arms Act.”
The Court concluded: “From the entirety of the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, nothing has surfaced to demonstrate that the petitioner carried one pistol of .32 bore and 16 live cartridges with any unlawful intent or objective.”
“Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court judgments relied upon by the petitioner, it is held that the petitioner is, in fact, innocent of the charges and is entitled to acquittal. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted of all charges.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Amritpal Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:126212
Case Number: CRR-2878-2022(O&M)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisth
