Delay in depositing a firearm due to serious illness does not constitute unnecessary delay under the Arms Act.

ORDER

The accused in C.C No.603/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who was the licence holder of a gun till 31.12.2018, deposited the above firearm before the authorised dealer only on 09.02.2019, and thus unauthorisedly possessed the above weapon without any licence, during the period from 01.01.2019 to 08.02.2019, and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 21 r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 .

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the aforesaid delay in the deposit of the gun with the authorised dealer, happened since the petitioner was suffering from serious illness and undergoing treatment. Thus, it is contended that there was no unnecessary delay in the deposit of the firearm.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as follows:

“21. Deposit of arms, etc., on possession ceasing to be lawful.

(1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury. Explanation.―In this sub-section “unit armoury” includes an armoury in a ship or establishment of the Indian Navy.

2. xxxx

3. xxxx”

6. There is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner had not deposited the firearm held by him before an authorised arms dealer after the expiry of the licence period. On the other hand, the reason for initiating criminal prosecution is that he made a delay of 39 days in complying with the above requirement of law. Going by the provisions contained in the aforesaid Section, it is to be noted that the culpability envisaged thereunder would come into play only when there was unnecessary delay on the part of the person who was holding the licence to deposit the firearm with the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or with the licenced dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not possible to say that the aforesaid delay of 39 days could be termed as an unnecessary delay in view of the fact that the petitioner, a septuagenarian, was said to be suffering from serious illness and undergoing treatment for the same. In the above circumstances, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in the above regard is liable to be terminated.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C No.603/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, which arose out of FIR No.64/2019 of Kanjar Police Station, are hereby quashed.