The 1st accused in Crime No.720/2010 of Panthalam Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.1146/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Adoor seeks to quash the proceedings against him for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. On 12.07.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., the Police, on getting a secret information that the petitioner herein along with another was handling arms, conducted search in a building. Two persons were found practicing karate with weapons. Six items of arms of various descriptions were seized. They claimed that these weapons were used for self defence and practice of martial arts. Crime was registered against them. Annexure A1 is the FIR. After investigation, Annexure A2 final report was laid for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. Prosecution of the petitioner is challenged in this proceeding.

3. Petitioner claimed himself to be a trained Kung-Fu champion, holding a certificate of merit issued by Sha-olin Martial Arts Academy, Japan, produced as Annexure A3. It showed that the petitioner had completed training of use of weapons. According to him, he has also been issued with a certificate dated 27.11.2008 by the Circle Inspector of Police, Panthalam Police Station, produced as Annexure A4, permitting him to impart physical training in Chinese Kung-Fu. It was issued under the Kerala Police (Regulation of Physical Training) Rules 2000, which permitted him to impart physical training of Chinese Kung-fu. Armed with the above certificates and materials, it was contended by the petitioner that he has not used the weapons for any illegal or prohibited purpose and it was intended by him only for the purpose of practicing karate and kung-fu. It was contended that Section 27 of the Arms Act has no application to the facts of the case and crime is not sustainable against him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Examined the records.

5. A mahazar prepared at the time of search gives the details of the weapons which were recovered at the time of search. They are, one sword with a pointed edge made of stainless steel with a width of 1¾ inch and length of 60 c.m., a sword stick of 40 cm length, pointed end and sharp at both sides, four numbers of trisul, each having 50 cm length with sharp end, a kama 60 cm length, a nanchak with a length of 26 cm and six canes of various descriptions. The petitioner herein and another person who were found in possession of it, were charged.

6. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above weapons were intended only for the purpose of practising martial arts and were not used for any illegal, offensive or nefarious activities. It was argued that mere possession of the above articles which were not prohibited arms as contemplated under the statute, in a non-notified area is not an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was contended that even according to the prosecution, mere possession of it alone was the allegation attributed to the accused.

7. The Arms Act 1959 shows that it categorises arms and ammunition into three categories, namely arms, fire arms and ammunition. Arms and ammunition are again catergorised as prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition. Each of the term is specifically defined under the statute. Chapter II of the Act is intended for regulation, control and ban of arms and ammunition and their acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, import, export and transport. Section 3 relates to licence for acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunition. Section 4 deals with licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in notified areas. Section 5 provides for licence for the purpose of manufacture, sale, transfer, conversion, repair etc. of fire arms or any other arms of any description as may be prescribed or any ammunition. Section 7 deals with prohibition of acquisition or possession or manufacture or sale of prohibited