Point of Law: Criminal Trial - Issuance of notification - Without placing on record a copy of notification issued under Section 4 of Arms Act prohibiting carrying of a weapon of a particular description in a particular area, charge for violation of such notification cannot be established.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.09.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Court”), whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.04.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) against the petitioner herein, has been upheld. Before coming to the instant revision petition, let me give a brief background of the facts leading to the filing of this petition.

2. Police Station, Kathua registered FIR bearing No.29/1994 for offence under Sections 4/25 Arms Act on the basis of a report submitted by the police party that was on patrolling duty on the said date. As per the FIR, on the said date while the police party was on patrolling duty, they found petitioner herein moving in suspicious circumstances and upon his personal search he was found to be in possession of a ‘khokhri’, a sharp edged weapon. The weapon in question was seized by the police and the petitioner was taken into custody. The investigation was set into motion and after completion of the investigation, challan came to be filed against the petitioner herein before the Trial Court.

3. Charge for offence under Sections 4/25 Arms Act was framed against the petitioner and he was put to trial. After trial of the case and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the charge for offence under Sections 4/25 Arms Act stands established against the petitioner and he was, accordingly, in terms of judgment dated 05.04.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court, convicted for offence under Sections 4/25 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-.

4. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence came to be assailed by the petitioner/accused before the Appellate Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 30.09.2010. It is this judgment, which is under challenge by way of instant revision petition before this Court.

5. The petitioner has primarily challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, on the ground that the prosecution had not placed on record the notification issued by the Government in terms of Section 4 of the Arms Act thereby prohibiting possession of and carrying of khokhri in the area of Kathua, where the offence is alleged to have been committed. It has been contended that without issuance of notification, in terms of Section 4 of the Arms Act and placing a copy thereof on record of the challan, it was not open to the learned Trial Court or to the Appellate Court to conclude that the petitioner had committed offence under Sections 4/25 Arms Act.

6. The respondent-State, on the other hand, has contended that once it was established from the evidence on record that the petitioner was carrying a khokhri, offence under Sections 4/25 Arms Act stood established against him even without placing on record a copy of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has vehemently contended that it is a fact of common knowledge that possession of khokhri has been prohibited in whole of the Union Territory of J&K including Kathua and, therefore, mere non-production of copy of the notification would not make any difference. It is contended that any notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act has the force of law and it is not necessary to place on record the said notification.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court as well as record of the Appellate Court.

8. The short controversy involved in this petition is as to whether. in the absence of production of notification prohibiting possession of