SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

Bombay High Court
Vilas Basant Rao Patil
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On:

Headnote:Section 27-Offence of possession and carrying of arms.

       The prosecution did not lead any evidence that a notification had been issued by the Central Government as provided for in Section 4 of the Arms Act prohibiting possession or carrying of arms in the area where the offence was committed. Unless the notification is issued, the possession or carrying of arms is not prohibited. There is no proof on the file that with reference to the area where the offence was committed, a notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act was issued. Consequently, the conviction of original accused under Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained.

       Section 4 r/w Section 27-Offence of possession or carrying of arms -Absence of proof of issuance of notification with reference to area where offence committed-Conviction can not be sustained.

       Section 4 of the Arms Act says that the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification, and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area anTIS of such class or specification as specified in that notification. Section 2 (c) of the Act defines the term arms which term means and includes a sharp-edged weapon. A sword is weapon of that kind. The prosecution did not lead any evidence that a notification had been issued by the Central Government as provided for in Section 4 of the Arms Act prohibiting possession or carrying of arms in the area where the offence was committed. Unless the notification is issued, the possession or carrying of the arms is not prohibited. There is no proof on the file that with reference to the area where the offence was committed, a notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act was issued. Consequently, the conviction of original accused No.1 under -Section 4 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained.

       For Citation : 1996(1) All MR 513 (Bom) : 1996 Cr LJ 1854 (Bom)

Vilas Basant Rao Patil VS State of Maharashtra
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top