Judgment

DUA, J.:- is appeal by special leave is directed against the order of summary dismissal of the appellants appeal by the High Court of Calcutta from the judgment and order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol dated June 18. 1969 convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 25 (1) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. According to the prosecution case, on receipt of secret information, Inspector Kali Prasanna Chaudhury of Detective Department, along with Circle Inspector, S. L. Routh S. I. K. D. Chakravarty, Officer-incharge of Hirapur police station and S. L K D. Chatterjee, Town Sub-Inspector of Asansol and some constables searched the appellant s house on May 14, 1968 between 6.40 a.m. and 9 a.m. in the presence of some other witnesses. In the Central Room of the house there was an almirah of which the key was produced by the appellant and handed over to Inspector Kali Prasanna Chaudhury (P.W. 1). The almirah was opened with the said key wherein was found a bag containing seven 12 bore live cartridges, seven .410 bore live cartridges, nine rifle ammunition and one .12 bore fired cartridge case. There was also found a gun folded into two parts under a bundle of clothes on the lowest shelf. The appellant could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the gun and the cartridges. As a result of this recovery the appellant was arrested and challaned. He was duly committed by a magistrate to the court of Sessions. The principal question which fell for decision at his trial was whether it could be said that he was in possession of the articles found from the almirah, as contemplated by S. 25 of the Arms Act. After discussing the evidence and the legal position on the question of presumption of conscious possession in circumstances like the present, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that these articles were in the appellant s conscious possession. No licence or permit for these articles having been produced, the appellant was convicted both under S. 25 (1) (a) and under S. 27 of the Arms Act. Under S. 27 of the Arms Act no separate sentence was considered necessary but under S. 25 (1) (a) he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years

3. It may incidentally be mentioned that in the trial court on behalf of the appellant the legality of the investigation into the offence in question was also assailed, it being further contended that the S. L. K. D. Chakravarty, Officer-in-charge of Hirapur police station was not empowered to investigate the case. As these questions are not agitated in this Court, we need say nothing on these points.

4. Against his conviction the appellant appealed to the High Court under Section 410, Cr. P. C. but this appeal was dismissed summarily on June 24. 1969 without indicating any reasons in support of the order of summary dismissal.

5. Before us on behalf of the appellant it was contended that the order of summary dismissal by the High Court is contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court in numerous decisions where it has been firmly laid down that if an appeal raises arguable points of fact or law, then, it is undesirable and improper to dismiss it summarily without indicating, at least broadly, the reasons for such dismissal. In this case, according to the submission, the question of the conscious possession of the articles on the facts and circumstances of this case, was of considerable importance and it required scrutiny of the evidence on the record. The appeal also raised some other questions relating to the alleged infirmities in the search conducted during the investigation. Indeed, according to the appellant s counsel, there were nearly ten ground, of appeal in the memorandum which suggest that the question of the conscious possession of these articles clearly required a closer scrutiny of the evidence in the case.

6. In our view, there is force in the appellant s contention. Beginning with the decision in Mushtak Hussei