Possession of a firearm post-license expiration is not criminal if the firearm was deposited within a reasonable period as prescribed by law.

ORDER

The second accused in Crime No.1333 of 2014 of Kanjirappally Police Station, aggrieved by the order in C.M.P.No.1522 of 2015 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kanjirappally directing further investigation into the offences alleged against the accused under sections 3(1) r/w 25(1-B)(a), 3(2) and 21(1) r/w 25(1-B)(h) of the Arms Act, 1959 has preferred this Crl.M.C.

2. The factual matrix unravelled from the records available is as follows:

The de facto complainant alleged that on 29.10.2014 at 8 a.m.

the first accused, who is the holder of a licensed gun, along with his brother, threatened the de facto complainant to cause his murder, by displaying a sword and the gun. On the basis of the complaint lodged, crime was registered as Crime No.1251 of 2014 of Kanjirappally Police Station against both, for various offences. In the meanwhile, de facto complainant filed a private complaint as C.M.P.No.9778 of 2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kanjirappally on 17.11.2014 alleging the commission of various offences under the Arms Act by the first accused along with the petitioner herein, arrayed as the second accused. The allegation was that the second accused, who was a licensed dealer of guns, had kept in his possession the licensed gun belonging to the first accused beyond the period of its license and thereby committed the offences punishable under the Act. It is revealed from the facts that the license of the gun of the first accused was to expire on 10.02.2014. He had applied for renewal of it on 23.01.2014 and the application was pending. In the meanwhile, due to the parliamentary election, notification was issued by the District Collector under section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 and published it on 18.03.2014. Consequently, the gun was deposited by the first accused with the second accused on 17.03.2014. It was alleged that even after the expiry of the license on 10.02.2014, the first accused continued to keep the gun with him till 17.03.2014 and thereafter the second accused had kept it in deposit beyond 30.08.2014. According to the petitioner herein, the licensed dealer could have legally retained the gun only till 30.08.2014. It was alleged that since, after the expiry of the above period, the gun was not deposited in the nearest police station as contemplated under section 21(1) of the , the dealer had committed the offences punishable under section 3 r/w section 25(1)(b)(a) and section 25(1)(b)(h) of the Act.

3. On the basis of the direction given by the court below, investigation was conducted by the police, which registered Annexure-A2 crime No.1333 of 2014 of Kanjirappallay Police Station. After the conclusion of investigation, Annexure-A3 report dated 22.11.2014 was submitted recommending dropping of the proceedings. Thereafter, C.M.P.No.1522 of 2015 was filed by the de facto complainant alleging commission of offence punishable under section 46(3)(a)(1) of the Arms Act, evidenced by Annexure- A4. This was investigated by the police on the direction of the court below and Annexure-A5 report dated 29.04.2015 was filed again recommending closure of the investigation. Thereafter, the present application was filed by the complainant as C.M.P.No.1522 of 2015, seeking further investigation. It was allowed by the learned magistrate by Annexure-A6 order, which is challenged in these proceedings.

4. It is pertinent to note that the court below, after considering all the available inputs, directed further investigation to probe whether the offences were made out or not and if it is made out, to state the reasons with relevant provisions under the Arms Act and Rules made thereunder. Prima facie, this order is not legally sustainable, for the reason that when the factual reports were filed before the court below, recommending closure of proceedings, stating the reasons for its conclusion on the basis of the materials gathered, the Court could not have ordered further investigation to probe whether the