Area must be notified under Section 4 of the Arms Act for offences under Section 27 to be applicable.

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.30 of 2004 now pending as L.P.No.134 of 2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Crime No.304 of 2003 of Valiathura Police Station was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 20 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Allegation against the petitioner is that at about 9.30 a.m., on 17.10.2003 he was seen brandishing a sword, threatening the public in front of the Kannanthara Church at Karikkakom Ward in Kadakampally Village, Thiruvananthapuram District.

3. The petitioner did not appear before the Court and therefore, the case was treated as long pending and numbered as L.P.No.134 of 2004. He later approached the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram Division for anticipatory bail. By order dated 07.10.2020, that application was dismissed. Thereafter he filed this Crl.M.C. seeking to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.304 of 2003 and all proceedings in L.P.No.134 of 2004 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegation against the petitioner is accepted as correct, no offence as alleged in the Final Report will be made out. Referring to Section 27 of the Arms Act, the learned counsel submitted that use of any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 is made punishable under the said provision. The learned counsel referred to Section 4 of the Act also. The counsel submitted that unless the area is notified by the Central Government under the Act, carrying or possessing of arms other than fire arms cannot be treated as an offence punishable under the provisions of of the Act. She asserted that the area wherein the petitioner was allegedly found to carry the sword was not a notified area and therefore, the offence under of the Act would not lie against the petitioner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jinu v. State of Kerala [ 2017 (4) KLT 895 ). Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the reported order are extracted hereunder:

“12. Now, on the background of these discussions, we can analyse Section 27 of the Arms Act for which the revision petitioner herein was convicted. (1) will be applicable wherever there is uses of any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 . (2) and (3)

is not at all applicable in the case at hand.

Section 5 (1) of the Arms Act reads as follows :

“Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition – (1)

No person shall -

(a) use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or (b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provision of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

----------

----------”

13. To attract Section 5 , in the case of arms other than fire arms it should be “such class or description as may be prescribed”.

Thus, on reading of Section 5 along with Section 4 of the Arms Act, it can be seen that will not be applicable in cases of arms coming under the purview of of the Arms Act for which licence is not required. As long as the area wherein the sword used is not a notified area, an offence under Section 27 will not lie. In the case at hand, there is no case for the prosecution that the incident took place at a notified area. No notification