Non-cognizable offences under the Arms Act, 1959 require the police to obtain an order from the Magistrate before registering an FIR under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The first respondent filed a private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under

Sections, 9, 27, 31, 39, 71(A), 50, 51, 52, 55 of the Wild

Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 71(a) of Karnataka

Forest Act, 1963, and Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection

5

Act, alleging that petitioners-accused illegally entered into

the forest land and shot Sambar using two guns.

2.

Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of

the aforesaid offences against the petitioners-accused.

Thereafter, the respondent No.1 submitted a report with

the jurisdictional Police concerned stating that the

petitioners have committed the offences punishable under

Indian Arms Act and the Arms Act, 1959 and the same has

to be investigated by the Police concerned.

3.

Based

on

the

report

submitted

by

the

respondent concerned, the FIR was registered for the

offences punishable under sections 3, 7, 25, 27 and 30 of

the Indian Arms Act and section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Taking exception to the registration of the FIR, the

petitioners-accused have filed this petition.

4.

Mr.

P.P.

Hegde,

learned

senior

counsel

appearing for the petitioners-accused submits that the

allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners had used the

6

licensed guns to kill two sambars in a forest land and even

accepting the allegations on the face of it, does not

constitute commission of the offence punishable under

Sections 3, 7, 25, 27 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act and

section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 . He further submits that

even accepting the allegations on the face of it, that the

petitioners used the guns in violation of the conditions of

the license, registration of the FIR for the offence

punishable under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act and

section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 which are non cognizable

is impermissible, since the FIR was registered without

obtaining the order of the learned Magistrate as specified

under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

5.

On

the

other

hand,

the

learned

HCGP

appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the

allegations

made

in

the

FIR

clearly

discloses

the

commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners-

accused. At this stage the allegations made requires to be

investigated and sought for dismissal of the petition.

7

6.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7.

The allegations in the FIR registered for the

offences under Sections 3, 7, 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms

Act, 1959 is that the petitioners/accused had used two

licensed guns for killing sambars in violation of the

conditions of license.

8.

Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 deals with

grant of license in acquisition and possession of firearms

and ammunition. Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 prohibits

the acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale of

prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. Section 25 of

the Act specifies punishment for certain offences. Section

27 of the Act specifies punishment for use of arms etc.,

Section 30 of the Act specifies the punishment for

contravenes of license or rule. Section 35 of the Act

specifies

criminal

responsibility

of

the

persons

in

occupation of premises in certain cases.

8

9.

In the instant case, the allegations made in the

FIR, even accepted on the face of it, constitute the

offences only under Sections 30 and 35 of the Act. The

offences under Sections 30 and 35 of the Act are

punishable with imprisonment for a term of six months or

with fine amount of Rs.2,000/- or with both. Hence,

offences under the said provisions are non cognizable and

the police before registering FIR were required to obtain

order from the learned Magistrate as specified under

Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The police without obtaining the

order of the learned Magistrate as specified under Section

155(2) of Cr.P.C has registered the FIR and the same is

one without authority of law. Hence, continuation of

investigation against petitioners/accused in the absence of

prior permission from learned Ma