Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1646 (RAJ)

Bhoop Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2003-12-11

N.N.MATHUR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision u/s. 397 Cr.P.C. is filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar dated 30.6.2003 confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisingh Nagar dated 19.2.2001 whereby he directed the petitioner to deposit the Twelve Bore Gun and Cartridges and cancelled the licence. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.11.1995 on receiving information from informer the police reached to the house of Veer Singh. He was seen sitting outside the house with Twelve Bore Gun in his hand. He was not having licence with him. He was arrested and case was registered for offence u/s. 3/25 of the Arms Act. After usual investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against him for offence u/s. 3/25 of the Arms Act. The trial Court convicted him for offence u/s. 30 of the Arms Act but instead of sentencing extended the benefit of probation. He, however, cancelled the licence u/s. 17(3) of the Arms Act. He also passed an order with respect to forfeiture of the Twelve Bore Gun recovered from Veer Singh. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that both the Courts below have not considered the case of the petitioner in right perspective. The charge-sheet was filed against petitioner-Bhoop Ram and Veer Singh. Bhoop Ram had the licence of the gun. He had gone to attend the `Mela'. Since carrying of arms was not permissible, he left the gun at the house of Veer Singh. In these circumstances it was prayed that there was no justified reasons for forfeiting the gun and cancelling the licence. 4. I have considered the contentions. Section 32(1) of the Arms Act provides that when any person is convicted under this Act of any offence committed by him in respect of any arms or ammunition, it shall be in the discretion of the convicting Court further to direct that the whole or any portion of such arms or ammunition, and any vessel, vehicle or other means of conveyance and any receptacle or thing containing or used to conceal the arms or ammunition shall be confiscated. Thus, a discretion is vested with the Court to confiscate the arms recovered. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the offence is of a technical nature. Thus, a discretion is vested with the Court to confiscate the arms recovered. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the offence is of a technical nature. There is no reason to not accept the plea of Bhoop Ram that he had left the gun at the house of Veer Singh, when he had gone to attend the `Mela'. However, there was a violation of the terms of the licence and, therefore, he has been rightly convicted. But keeping in view the technical nature of the offence I am of the view that the Courts below have committed error in exercising the discretion of confiscating the Twelve Bore Gun and cancelling the licence. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar dated 30.6.2003 is set aside. The order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisingh Nagar dated 19.2.2001 so far as it relates to confiscation of the gun and cancellation of the licence is concerned, the same is also set aside.Revision petition allowed. *******