Lack of prima facie evidence necessitated quashing of proceedings under the Arms Act.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.503 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2022 at about 19.00 hrs in the public place the accused had a sword and cut the cake on account of his birthday and the same was videographed and uploaded in the social media, therefore First Information Report has been registered in Crime No.465 of 2022 for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent who is the Sub Inspector of Police had lodged complaint as against the petitioner and First Information Report has been registered in Crime No. 465 of 2022 for the offence under Section 25(1- A) of Arms Act. Infact the Arms Act would not attract and the petitioner only celebrated his birthday and the said sword is not a prohibited arm . According to the prosecution the video said have spread virally but the same has not been secured by the first respondent during investigation. The said sword is not prohibited arm as defined under Section 2(i) of Arms Act. The investigation agency not even verified the said Facebook ID and no proof that the FaceBook Id as referred by them and that the Face Book belongs to whom, therefore there is no any basic materials. Therefore without any basic materials the investigation agency have filed final report and the Court also without having any prima facie materials to consitute the offence has taken cognizance and the case is pending in S.C.No.503 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that on account of the birthday of the petitioner on 20.09.2022 he cut the cake in the public place with sword and took the video and uploaded in the facebook, therefore the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 465 of 2022 and thereafter filed final report, based on the final report the Session Court has also taken cognizance Further sword is a prohibited arm and it comes under the Arms Act. There are prima facie materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner. Therefore the session Court has also taken cognizance for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act and therefore the petitioner has to face the trial, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The charge as against the petitioner is that the petitioner on account of his birth he had cut the cake with sword and the same was videographed and uploaded in the social media. The important ground raised by the petitioner is that there is no any complaint given by any individual and the complaint was lodged only by the concerned Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned police station. The investigation agency has not collected the alleged video and without collecting the video which is base for the alleged commission of offence the respondent police have filed final report. More over the alleged sword is not a prohibited arm as per Section2(i) of Arms Act.

7. Section 2(i)of the Arms Act reads as follows:

(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-