Advocates:
['SHAKTI RAJ SINHA', 'AK PRASAD', '', 'NISHI KNAT SINHA', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2010

•

Subhash Gupta, S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Gupta, aged about 23 years, R/o

Village- Chhindia, Police Station- Patna, District Korea (C.G.)

---- Applicant

Versus

•

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Patna, District Korea (C.G.)

---- Non-Applicant/State

For Applicant

:

Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate

For Non-Applicant/State

:

Smt. Pushpalata Khalko, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

12.08.2022

1. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions

Court, Manendragarh, Place Baikunthpur, District Korea in Cr.A. No. 49/2008

on 17.08.2010, whereby he has been convicted under Section 25 (1) (B) of

the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.100/-

for carrying arms which is prohibited under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The applicant was tried by learned J.M.F.C. Baikuntpur, District Korea in

Cr.A. No. 327/07 dated 28.06.2008 whereby he was convicted under Section

25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of

Rs.100/-.

2. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions

Court, Manendragarh, Place Baikunthpur, District Korea in the instant

revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2007 one Dasrath Rajwade

(PW-3) informed the police that when he was in his agricultural field and he

was irrigating his agricultural field, the present applicant came there and

stopped him by cutting boundaries of the field, abused him and tried to

assault by means of battle-axe. On such complainant, the police registered

an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Police recorded the

statements of Santlal (PW-1) and Mahendra Prasad (PW-2) and seized the

2

battle-axe from the possession of the applicant.

4. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The

applicant absurd the said charge and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution

examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of the case and exhibited 08

documents. The statement of the applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was

recorded.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence, convicted the

applicant under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned

above. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned

Sessions Court and vide judgment dated 17.08.2010 in Cr.A. No. 49/2008,

the Sessions Court convicted the applicant by modifying the section from 25

to 25 (1) (B) of the Arms Act and sentence was also modified from three

years to one year. .

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is resident of

rural area where usually the agriculturists and the cow-grazers carry the

battle-axe or axe alongwith them. He further submits that according to

Section 4 of the Arms Act, there must be a notification specifying arms of

specified description in certain cases either issued by the Central

Government or State Government but no notification has been produced

before the learned trial Court which vitiates the entire trial. He also submits

that during trial the applicant has remained in jail for a period of 15 days and

at that time he was aged about 23 years.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the contention

raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The short legal question, arising in this criminal revision for consideration, is

“whether conviction under Section 25 (1) (B) of the Act, 1959 is sustainable

in absence of any evidence that the battle-axe carried by the applicant was

in the category of 'prohibited arms' as has been specified in the Notification

3

issued by the State Government under Section 4 read with Section 25 (1B)

(b) of the Act 1959?”

10.Coming to the legal issue, it ma