Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1468 (RAJ)

Swami Shri Sunder Das v. State

2003-10-30

N.N.MATHUR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him for offence u/s. 29(b) of the Arms Act. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that one Om Prakash lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Khedapa stating inter alia that on 5.11.2000 a mob led by Charan Das and Madan Singh damaged his wall. It is also alleged that Charan Das fired at him. However, he escaped. The accused-Charan Das was arrested and a gun was also recovered from him. After usual investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against Charan Das and others for offence u/ss. 436 & 307 IPC. A charge-sheet has also been filed against the petitioner for offence u/s. 29(b) of the Arms Act. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence worth the name that the accused-Charan Das used the gun belonging to petitioner-Sunder Das. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions it could be apt to read Section 29(b) of the Arms Act. 29. Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc. from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc. to person not entitled to possess the same, whoever, (a) .................. (b) delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the same. shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 4. I have perused the challan papers. There is no evidence to show that the gun recovered by the police from Charan Das was used in the alleged incident. There is also no evidence that the gun was delivered by the petitioner to Charan Das. In view of this no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to put him to trial for offence u/s. 29(b) of the Arms Act. The proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Consequently, the Misc. Petition is allowed. In view of this no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to put him to trial for offence u/s. 29(b) of the Arms Act. The proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Consequently, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 6.3.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City taking cognizance against petitioner-Sunder Das for offence u/s. 29(b) of the Arms Act in Cr.Case 113/2002 (C.R. No. 131/2000, Police Station, Khedapa) is quashed and set aside. The proceedings as against other accused persons shall continue.Petition allowed. *******