Headnote:(1) Arms Act, 1959 -- Ss. 25, 4 and 2 -- knife seized not proved to be an arm as defined under -- no notification under S.4 also proved -- conviction cannot sustain. [Para 7
       (2) Arms Rules, 1962 -- R.3, Sch.I-5 -- knife not proved to be of the category mentioned under -- cannot be said to be an ‘arm ‘. [Para 6
        ¼1½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && /kkjk 25] 4 rFkk 2 && cjken fd;k x;k pkdw mica/k ds v/khu ;FkkifjHkkf"kr vk;q/k lkfcr ugha && /kkjk 4 ds vf/klwpuk Hkh lkfcr ugha && nks"kflf) ekU; ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 6 rFkk 7
       ¼2½ vk;q/k fu;e] 1962 && fu- 3] vuqlwph ,d&5 && pkdw mica/k ds v/khu of.kZr dksfV esa vkus okyk lkfcr ugha && ^vk;q/k* ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 6

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) .

What is the requirement under Arms Act and Rules to classify a knife as an "arm" for conviction under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act?

What is the effect of lack of Central Government notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act on the validity of a conviction?

What are the grounds on which the conviction and sentence were set aside in this revision?

ORDER

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 is evident, from category 5 of schedule 1 and rule 3 of the Arms Rules, 1962 that any sharp edged and deadly weapon, namely Sword, Dagger, a knife and other weapon, the blade of these weapons should be longer than 9" or wider than 2" in order to bring them within the purview of the definition of the Arms Act.

7. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to bring any notification of the Central Government on the record, issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act, regulating the acquisition, possession and carrying of Arm in the district of Panna. The prosecution has also not led any cogent evidence that the knife seized from the possession of the applicant was longer than 9" and 2" in width, in order to bring the same within the purview of the definition of the Arms as provided under the Arms Act.

8. The learned lower Court has overlooked this aspect of the case, and the evidence in this regard. There is manifest illegality in the conviction and sentence of the applicant.

9. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the judgment under appeal is set aside, and this application succeeds, and is hereby allowed.

C.C. be given on payment of usual charges.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 Supreme(MP) 167

1997 (1) JLJ 352N.P. Singh, J.Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed v. State of M.P.Cr.Revn. No. 56 of 1995; against the order of Shri C. C. Dwivedi, SessionsJudge, Panna, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1994;Decided on 30.1.1995.

What is the requirement under Arms Act and Rules to classify a knife as an "arm" for conviction under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act?

What is the effect of lack of Central Government notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act on the validity of a conviction?

What are the grounds on which the conviction and sentence were set aside in this revision?

1997 (1) JLJ 352
N.P. Singh, J.
Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed v. State of M.P.
Cr.Revn. No. 56 of 1995; against the order of Shri C. C. Dwivedi, Sessions
Judge, Panna, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1994;
Decided on 30.1.1995.