Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1323
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
VALAPRA MUHAMMED BASHEER – Appellant
Versus
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 249/2019
Validity of notification prohibiting possession of arms without a license and the classification based on geographical differences under the Arms Act.
Headnote:
Arms Act - Validity of Notification - The court held that the notification prohibiting possession of arms without a license was valid, and the petitioner's possession of swords and axes constituted an offence punishable under the Arms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought discharge on the ground that the weapons he allegedly possessed are not prohibited arms and in the absence of a notification prohibiting possession of such weapons in the area where he was found in possession, no such offence could be attracted. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that there was a valid notification prohibiting possession of such weapons in the area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification prohibiting possession of arms without a license was valid, and the petitioner's possession of swords and axes constituted an offence punishable under the Arms Act. The court held that the plea of the prosecution regarding the validity of the notification could not be discarded and that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under the Arms Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's possession of swords and axes constituted an offence punishable under the Arms Act, and whether there was a valid notification prohibiting possession of such weapons in the area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification prohibiting possession of arms without a license was valid, and the petitioner's possession of swords and axes constituted an offence punishable under the Arms Act. The court also considered the validity of the notification based on geographical differences and held that it was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under the Arms Act. The trial court's decision to dismiss the petition seeking discharge was upheld.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 249 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI IN CRL.M.P.NO.2510/2018 IN C.C.NO.102/2017 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VALAPRA MUHAMMED BASHEER AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDAJI, KODIKKALAPARAMB , PALAKKAD P.O, KAVUNGAPPARA, PULPATTA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.
SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AREEKODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SMT.SEENA C.- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON
23.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.249 of 2019 -----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
O R D E R
In the revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.09.2018 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri in Crl.M.P.No.2510 of 2018 in C.C.No.102 of 2017. The trial court dismissed the said petition which was filed seeking discharge.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. C.C.No.102 of 2017 arose on a police report. The accusation against the petitioner is that he possessed four swords and three axes without any license for possessing the same, and also a sum of Rs.1,20,450/-. It was alleged that the said act of possessing arms was punishable under Section 4 read with 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act). The petitioner sought discharge on the ground that the weapons he allegedly possessed are not prohibited arms and in the absence of a notification prohibiting possession of such weapons in the area where he was found in possession, no such offence could be attracted. In support of that contention, the petitioner placed reliance on Jinu v. State of Kerala [2017 (4) KLT 895] and Stephen v. State of Kerala [2018 (3) KLT 920]. The trial court did not accept that contention. It was held that there was a notification issued on 10.09.1922 (sic. 1929) and whether or not the said notification is valid is a matter to be decided in evidence. It was further held that possession of such weapons would constitute an offence punishable under Section 7(a) read with Section 25(1A) of the Act and therefore a charge was liable to be framed against the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 7(a) read with Section 25(1A) of the Act can never be attracted inasmuch as the swords and axes allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner are not prohibited arms as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. If at all an offence is attracted, that is under Section 4 read with 25(1B)(b) of the Act, but in the absence of a valid notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, that offence will also not be attracted.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that the offence attracted in the facts of this case is one punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act and there is a notification issued under Section 15 of the Arms Act 1878 which is the forerunner of Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the said notification is valid, despite repeal of the Arms Act 1878. The learned Public Prosecutor relies on Jithu and another v. State of Kerala and another [2014 (3) KLT 243] and Neel Niranjan Majumdar v. The State of W.B.[1972 (2) SCC
668]
6. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue notification prohibiting acquisition, possession, etc. of arms other than firearms, of such class or description in the areas specified in that notificatio
