Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dipak Misra, J.
Chunta
Vs.
State of M.P.
Cr. A. No. 1038 of 1998 (J)
Decided On: 17.09.1998
ARMS ACT - SECTIONS 25, 27, 39 - POSSESSION OF FIREARMS WITHOUT LICENSE - SEIZURE OF WEAPONS - PRODUCTION IN COURT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellants were convicted under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for possessing firearms without a license. The prosecution alleged that the accused were apprehended while preparing to commit dacoity and that weapons were seized from them. However, the seized weapons were not produced in court, and there was no evidence of their whereabouts or whether they were sent for ballistic examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were in possession of firearms. The court noted that the seized weapons were not produced in court, there was no explanation for their non-production, and there was no evidence that the weapons were sent for ballistic examination. The court also held that the sanction for prosecution under section 39 of the Arms Act was not properly obtained, as the sanctioning authority did not have the opportunity to examine the weapons before granting sanction.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were in possession of firearms? 2. Whether the sanction for prosecution under section 39 of the Arms Act was properly obtained?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were in possession of firearms. The court noted that the seized weapons were not produced in court, there was no explanation for their non-production, and there was no evidence that the weapons were sent for ballistic examination. The court relied on the decision in Nand Kishore Vs. State of Haryana, where it was held that the possibility of tampering with the weapon while in police custody could not be ruled out in the absence of proof of the seized arms and ammunition being secured, sealed, and deposited in 'malkhana'. 2. The court held that the sanction for prosecution under section 39 of the Arms Act was not properly obtained, as the sanctioning authority did not have the opportunity to examine the weapons before granting sanction. The court relied on the decision in Raju Dubey Vs. State of M.P., where it was held that the sanctioning authority must satisfy itself that the instrument is covered within the definition given in the Act and that the possession of the instrument was illegal.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The accused-appellants were discharged of the bail bonds.
Dipak Misra, J.
1. In both the appeals challenge being to the decision rendered in ST. No. 152/83 by the Special Judge, Chhatarpur, they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.5.83 after getting some reliable information the Sub-Inspector (PW.5) and the Head-constable (PW.2) alongwith Pitare (PW.1) and Hardas (PW.4) went to Shyam Ke Khoda. There they saw the accused persons had hidden themselves being armed with weaspons. After due efforts the present accused persons and some others were apprehended. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons were armed with weapons and preparing for committing dacoity in the house of one Mohan Lodhi. Taking advantage of the darkness accused-Rajau and Malik Singh escaped and, therefore, they could not be apprehended immediately. Later on, they were taken to custody. After their arrest in presence of Pitare (PW.1) and Hardas (PW.4) a 12 bore Katta and two live catridges from the Mutka and one pistol from the accused Chunta were seized. The said accused persons had no licence to possess the said arms. From Maiyadin one 'lathi' and from Lakhan one 'ballam' were seized. The concerned Sub-Inspector prepared 'Dehati Nalish' at the spot. On the next day i.e. on 29.5.83 he prepared the spot map in presence of the witnesses. After completing all other formalities the accused were sent up for trial under sections 399 and 402 read with sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and section 11 of the M.P. Dacoity &Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. As the offences under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were registered against the accused persons the prosecution obtained due sanction from the District Magistrate.
3. The accused persons abjured their guilt. Their further plea was that they had been falsely roped in the aforesaid crime due to previous animosity.
4. The prosecution, to substantiate the charge against the accused persons, examined five witnesses and brought number of documents on record. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.
5. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial Judge came to hold that the prosecution has brought home the charges against the present accused-appellants for the offences punishable under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months under sections 25 of the Act, and to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay tine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further R.I. for four months under section 27 of the Act.
6. I have heard Manish Datt, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No. 1038/88 and Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No. 1046/88 and Mr. Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants questioning the sustainability of judgment of conviction have contended that the weapons which were seized cannot be regarded as 'arms' as understood in the context of the Act in absence of any positive evidence that the seized fire arms satisfied the character and description of fire arms. It is also contended that the seized arms were not produced in the Court and no explanation had been offered for such non-production and where they were kept after seizure. Learned counsel have also submitted that mere seizure does not provide sufficient foundation to come to the conclusion that the weapons which were seized from the accused persons were fire arms because the possibility of manipulation cannot be totally brushed aside. The other ground of attack is that there has been non-compliance of Section 39 of the Act. Elaborating the same, it is canvassed that though the letter of sanction has been produced before the Court, it has been so done by the investigating officer without following the due procedure as envisa
AI
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
