Honble VERMA, J. — This revision petition by Basant Raj has been filed against the order of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sumerpur dated 11.2.1992 in Criminal Original Case No. 208/91 State vs. Basant Raj. whereby learned Magistrate has framed charges for offences under Section 20/27 of the Indian Arms Act and Rule 62 of the Arms Rules read with Section 30 of the Arms Act.

(2). Briefly, stated the prosecution case is that on 2.5.91 at 2.15 A.M. petitioner Basant Raj was found in a drunken condition by the Head-constable Bhabhoott Singh Acting SHO, Sanderao at a place known as Kanpura Choraha. The petitioner was arrested for offence under Section 510 IPC by Bhabhoot Singh. Petitioner was searched by Bhabhoot Singh and upon search of the right pocket of the pant was found a 32 Bore revolver made in England of make Webley Scot limitted No. 85844 with 6 cartirdges. The petitioner was found to carry this revolver without there being a licence on the person of the petitioner Bhabhoot Singh seized the revolver and the cartridges. The relevant memos were prepared. Petitioner was challanged to face trial for offences under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(3). It appears that petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 3.5.91 when a bail application was moved by him before the learned Magistrate. On 3.5.91 petitioner produced a licence bearing No, SPL/2184 DTN issued by Additional District Magistrate, Dharwar in the name of the petitioner. The licence was valid for the period 31.12.93 of all India excepting Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana. The petitioner also produced a photo-stat copy of the licence also. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Magistrate.

(4). The petitioner prayed for release of the revolver and the cartridges to him but the learned Magistrate declined to do so with the result that the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 526/91. Basant Raj. vs. State of Rajasthan in this Court. This writ petition was decided by Honble Justice Shri Y.R. Meena on 2.12.91 and it Was ordered that the revolver may be returned to the petitioner.

(5). The learned Magistrate after hearing both the sides framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 20/27 of the Arms Act and Rule 62 of Arms Rules read with Section 30 of the Arms Act.

(6). In this revision petition it is urged that no offence was made out against the petitioner. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the petitioner used the revolver for any unlawful purpose, whatsoever. The licence under which the petitioner was carrying the revolver was also produced before the Magistrate himself within a reasonable time i.e. on 3.5.91 itself and hence there was no contravention of Rules 62 so as to constitute an offence under Sec. 30 of the Arms Act. It is, therefore, urged that the petition should be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned MJM, Sumerpur should be quashed.

(7). Learned Public Prosecutor supports the prosecution and submits that there was proper material before the learned Magistrate to frame the impugned charges against the petitioner and this Court should not interfere with the order framing the two charges.

(8). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Court below.

(9). It is an admitted position before me that petitioner held a valid licence with respect to the revolver and cartridges in question. The licence was valid till 21.12.93 as observed by the learned Magistrate.

(10). The prosecution case is that the petitioner did not carry the licence on his person when the revolver was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that assuming this fact to be true, no case could be made out against the petitioner in as much as the licence had been produced before the learned Magistrate on 3.5.1991 i.e. within a reasonable period, after the search and the seizure was made. It is urged that no offence was committed by the petitioner under Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document