Prosecution under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act is contingent upon the existence of a notification under Section 4; without such notification, the charge is unsustainable. Furthermore, vague allegations of public nuisance without specific victims do not justify criminal proceedings under the IPC.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

N. TUKARAMJI, J

GIST:

HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

1. Criminal Application No. 3111 of 2018, decided on 18.02.2019

2. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 7817 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard M/s. S.M. Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1/State.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.09.2022 at about 00:10 hours, the de facto complainant (respondent No. 2), while on patrolling duty at Palton ‘X’ Road, noticed a gathering wherein certain individuals were celebrating a birthday. It is alleged that the petitioner cut a cake using a sword (long knife) and thereafter danced while wielding the said weapon, accompanied by loud music. It is further alleged that such acts caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic and amounted to public nuisance. Based on the said allegations, Crime No. 365 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Chaderghat, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed.

Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire substratum of the prosecution rests upon the alleged use of a sword during a private celebration. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. In particular, there is no specific material to demonstrate

(i) any actual obstruction to a particular individual so as to constitute an offence under Section 341 IPC, or

(ii) a degree of annoyance or injury to the public at large sufficient to attract Section 290 IPC.

5. Further, it is contended that the invocation of Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act is wholly misconceived in the absence of a valid notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, classifying the alleged weapon (sword/long knife) as a regulated arm within the specified area. In the absence of such statutory notification, the very foundation for prosecution under the Arms Act is legally unsustainable.

Hence, continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Dilip v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 3111 of 2018, decided on 18.02.2019), wherein, in a factually similar scenario involving use of a sword for cake-cutting, the Court held that in the absence of a notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act, prosecution under Section 25(1-B)(b) cannot be sustained.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, fairly submits that for attracting the provisions of Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, it is incumbent that a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Act specifying the class of arms and the area to which such regulation applies. He candidly admits that no such notification is in existence, classifying swords or long knives for the relevant area. He, therefore, leaves the matter to the discretion of this Court.

8. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made and perused the material on record.

9. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he used a sword to cut a cake and subsequently danced with it during a birthday celebration, allegedly causing obstruction to traffic and public inconvenience.

10. At this juncture, it is apposite to examine the