Back
N.P.SINGH
Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The court discusses that a knife must meet size criteria (length >9 inches or width >2 inches) and be a weapon under definition to fall under Arms Act (!) (!) . - There is absence of Central Government notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act in the record, affecting the conviction’s validity (!) . - The prosecution failed to prove the knife’s dimensions and that it fell within the defined "arm," leading to manifest illegality in conviction (!) . - The Sessions Judge’s appeal was dismissed, but the revision ultimately sets aside the judgment, allowing the revision (!) (!) (!) . - The knife recovered from the applicant was not proven to exceed 9" in length or 2" in width to constitute an arm (!) . - The Arms Rules 1962, Rule 3, Schedule I-5 define category of weapons and their dimensions for arms classification (!) . - Counsel for applicant conceded lack of cogent evidence; prosecution acknowledged lack of legal evidence (!) . - The judgment notes manifest illegality and reverses the conviction and sentence (!) . - The case concerns possession of a Rampuri knife and conviction under Arms Act 1959, Section 25(1)(b) (!) . - The order indicates the revision is disposed at admission stage with parties’ consent (!) .
1. This revision is being disposed of at the admission stage upon the consent of the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 16.1.95 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No. 60/94, whereby he dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant as passed by the Trial Court.
3. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act, for possessing a Rampuri knife, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo R.I. for further two months.
4. The conviction and sentence of the applicant was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No. 64/94.
5. Shri Surendra Singh learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence, that the knife recovered and seized from the applicant was longer than 9" in length and 2" in width in order to bring the offence within the purview of the definition of the Arms, as provided under the Arm Act.
Shri N.S. Ruprah, Dy. Government Advocate has fairly conceded that there is lack of legal evidence in this case.
6. It
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
