GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. M. ALI, J.
F. RODINGLIANA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT (IN JAIL)
VERSUS
STATE OF MIZORAM
Criminal Appeals Nos. 135 and 147-J of 1982.
Decided on : 5 -4 -1983.
ARMS ACT - SECTION 3, 25(1)(A), 27 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - VALIDITY OF SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - INTENT TO USE ARMS FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for possessing a pistol and ammunition without a valid license or permit. The search was conducted by members of the armed forces without a warrant, and the prosecution obtained sanction from the Additional District Magistrate for prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the search was valid under the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Power Act, 1958, which authorized the armed forces to enter and search premises without a warrant for the purpose of arresting persons acting in contravention of the law or recovering arms, ammunition, or explosives. The court also found that the sanction for prosecution was valid and that the prosecution had proved its case under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the search conducted by the armed forces without a warrant was valid? 2. Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid? 3. Whether the prosecution had proved its case under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act? 4. Whether the accused-appellant had the intent to use the arms for an unlawful purpose under Section 27 of the Arms Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the search was valid under Section 4(d) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Power Act, 1958, which authorized the armed forces to enter and search premises without a warrant for the purpose of arresting persons acting in contravention of the law or recovering arms, ammunition, or explosives. 2. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid as it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, who had the power to do so under Section 39 of the Arms Act. 3. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act as the accused-appellant was found in possession of a pistol and ammunition without a valid license or permit. 4. The court held that there was no evidence to show that the accused-appellant had the intent to use the arms for an unlawful purpose or to enable any other person to use the same for any unlawful purpose, and therefore, the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was set aside.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act were upheld, and those under Section 27 of the Arms Act were set aside.
1. These two appeals arise from the same judgment conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl in case No. G.R. 37/82 under S. 25 (1) (a)/27 of the Arms Act convicting the accused-appellant to 3 years ,R.I. u/s 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and also R.I. for 4 years u/s. 27 of the Arms Act. the sentences on both the counts running consecutively.
2. On 14-1-82 the officer-in-charae of Aizawl Police Station received a written report from Saisima of 1 MAP to the effect that on the night of 13-1-82 the accused-appellant was found possessing one M-20 Pistol and 150 rounds of ammunitions and 2 magazines without any valid licence or permit. On this information investigation was started by the police and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against him. At the trial the accused-appellant was charged under those sections of the Arms Act. The accused-appellant denied the allegations. In the trial 5 P.Ws. were examined and the accused was examined under Section 313. Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and punished him as said above. Learned defence counsel in the trial Court preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence and another appeal was filed through jail by the accused-appellant himself. The two appeals therefore have been taken and heard together and this judgment will cover both the appeals.
3. The prosecution case is that SI Saisiama attached to the 1st Battalion of MAP at Aizawl received an information on 13-1-82 at about 9 P.M. that in the house of P.W. 4 Aichhinga of Electric Veng. Aizawl one person was staying with illegal arms and ammunitions in his possession. On this information which was communicated to the Assistant Commandant a party consisting of the S.I, and Commandant A. Agha and two constables as well as the driver of a vehicle rushed to the Spot and conducted search in the house of P.W. 4 Aichhinga and found accused-appellant Rodingliana lying on the bed. On being challenged the accused-appellant identified himself as Rodingliana. a Lieutenant in the Mizo National Front.
On removal of the pillow which was being used by the accused-appellant. SI Saisiama found one M-20 Pistol loaded with one round in the chamber and 7 rounds in its magazine. Assistant Commandant A. Agha unloaded the pistol and found a magazine inside it. Close to the bed on which the accused-appellant was lying a green Jacket was hung to a chair and in the pocket of that jacket one more magazine with 7 rounds of ammunition was also found. Then along with the arm and the ammunitions the party brought the accused-appellant to their battalion headquarters and after some interrogation took him to the Police Station which was at : about 10 P.M. in the same night and both the accused-appellant and the arm and ammunitions were handed over to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. SI Saisiama also lodged a complaint (Ext.1) to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station who seized the arm and the ammunitions vide seizure list Ext. 2. As said before, investigation was taken up and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant.
4. Mr. Nurmohammad. learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant assailed the conviction and sentences on several grounds one of which is that no search warrant was issued and that in absence of a search warrant the entire search operation was illegal. Dr. Sharma. learned Standing Counsel for Mizoram pointed out that by virtue of the provisions of S. 4 (d) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Power Act. 1958 which has been in force in the Union Territory of Mizoram. the members of the armed forces are authorised to enter and search without warrant any premises for the purpose of arresting any person who in their opinion is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force and/or to recover any arms, ammunitions or explosive substance believed to be unl
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.