IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue where Totality of evidence collected by Investigation Officer is not sufficient to draw even a remote inference of offence alleged.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant seeks quashment of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR No. 477 of 2022 dated 9th July, 2022 lodged against him at Police Station, Govind Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Arms Act’]. It was inter alia alleged in the FIR that the appellant was found in the Pravasi Park acting suspiciously. Upon being searched, a buttondar knife having dimensions, 31.5 cms in length (blade length of 14.5 cms and handle of 17 cms) and width of 3 cms, was recovered from his possession.

3. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant in connection with the aforesaid FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. The appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a petition [Criminal MC No. 1736 of 2023] under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’] for quashing of the FIR, the consequential charge-sheet, and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder. The said petition stands rejected vide order dated 18th April, 2023 which is assailed in this appeal by special leave.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG, appearing for the State (NCT of Delhi) and have gone through the material placed on record.

5. As per Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A) of the Arms Rules, 2016 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Arms Rules’], possession of a knife having blade length of more than 9 inches (22.86 cms) and width of more than 2 inches (5.08 cms) has been brought within the purview of an offence under the Arms Act and the Arms Rules. The said provision read as under: -

“V. Arms other than firearms: Sharp-edged and deadly weapons, namely: Swords (including sword-sticks), daggers, bayonets, spears (including; lances and javelins), battle-axes, knives (including Kirpans and Khukries) and other such weapons with blades longer than 9” or wider than 2” other than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or industrial purposes, steel batton, “Zipo” and other such weapons called 'life preservers', machinery for making arms, other than category II, and any other arms which the Central Government may notify under Section 4 of the Act.” (emphasis supplied)

6. Admittedly, dimensions of the knife recovered from the appellant were much lesser than the one provided in the statute and the rules framed thereunder. However, the Government of NCT of Delhi has issued a DAD notification dated 29th October, 1980 [Hereinafter, being referred as ‘DAD Notification’] by which certain categories of knives/sharp weapons, having dimensions lesser than those provided in the Arms Act and Arms Rules when meant for “manufacture, sale or possess for sale or test” , were brought within the purview of the Arms Act. The DAD notification reads as below: -