Mere possession of non-prohibited arms does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act, where no licensing requirement is in effect.

O R D E R The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.1301/2018 of Konni Police Station, which is pending as C.C.No.1237/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) r/w. 25(1A) of Arms Act , 1955.

2. The prosecution case is that, while the

2^nd respondent, along with the police party was conducting patrol duty, they found the petitioners, who were members of ABVP/BJP, with arms in a car bearing registration No. KL03-Z- 1125. It is alleged that the vehicle was found near a college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, where an election was forthcoming. The petitioners were arrested from the spot along with arms which consisted of hammer and a brake cable made of steel and a sharp-edged weapon that comes within the category of ‘churika’. The said articles were seized from the back side of the car. Annexure-A1 is the F.I.R. and Annexure-A2 is the final report submitted by the police. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the same, and it is now pending trial. This Crl.MC is filed by the petitioners for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 final report.

3. Heard Sri.T.K. Biju (Manjinikara), the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for 1^st and 2^nd respondents.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if the allegations contained in the final report are accepted as true, no offences alleged against the petitioners are made out. According to the petitioners, mere possession of the arms seized from the petitioners would not make out any offences under the Arms Act . It is further contended that no notification as contemplated under Section 4 of the is in force requiring any licence for manufacturing or selling or possessing the arms which were allegedly seized from their possession.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid contentions.

6. I have carefully gone through the materials placed on record. One of the offences alleged is under Section 7 (a) of the Arms Act , which reads as follows:

“7. Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition.—

No person shall—

a acquire, have in his possession or carry b ………

c …………

Any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central Government in this behalf”

As per the same, in order to attract the said offence, the accused must have acquired or have in his possession or carry any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. The term ‘prohibited arms’ is defined under Section 2(i) of the Arms Act , which reads as follows:

“S.2(i)“prohibited arms” means—

(i) firearms so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty, or (ii) weapons of any description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, and includes artillery, anti-aircraft and anti- tank firearms and such other arms as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited arms.”

Going by the averments in the final report and the seizure mahazar, which forms part of the final report, it can be seen that no arms which come within the description of prohibited arms were admittedly seized from the possession of the accused persons. Therefore, the offence under Section 7 (a) would not get attracted. The next offence is under Section 25 (1AA) which reads as follows:

“25(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his