Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 771 (AP)

Mannepalli Mohan Rao v. P. V. Ramana

2005-08-18

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2005
( 1 ) ALLEGING that on 15-3-2004 at about 1. 30 p. m. , petitioner was found brandishing a curved knife on a public road hurling out abuses, giving out that persons coming near would be killed with the knife in his hand and thereby created panic in a public place, the Station House Office, i Town Police Station; Rajahmundry, registered a case in crime No. 127 of 2004 under Section 506 IPC and Under Section 25 of the Arms Act (for short the Act ) against the petitioner. This petition is filed to quash the said FIR. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated in the case for his having refused to accept the proposal of a compromise mooted by the State House officer, (who registered the case against the petitioner) in connection with a family dispute among the family members of the petitioner. It is his contention that since the allegations in the FIR do not disclose that any particular person was threatened or was intimidated by the petitioner, section 506 IPC is not attracted and since the knife allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner is not beyond the length of the knife prescribed in the notification No. 13/203/78-Home (G), FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed, by placing strong reliance on the observations in Paragraph 78 of Kalpnath Rai etc. etc. v. State (through CBI), 1997 (2) ALD (Crl.) 805 (SC) = 1997 (4) Crimes 227 (SC ). ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 4 ) SECTION 25 of the Act prescribes different punishments for violation of various provisions of the Act. Keeping in view that fact the observations in Para 78 of kalpnath Rai case (supra), strongly relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have to be considered to find out if they are of any help to the petitioner. The said para reads as under :"we have to observe, at the outset on this point, that even if prosecution story is accepted by us and the finding of the designated Court is upheld on this point we are unable to uphold the conviction of A-5 (Paresh Mohan Desai) under Section 25 of the Arms Act, A-5 was found in possession of only a knife the length of which is 9. 2". 2". Possession of a knife, if that has to amount to an offence under the aforesaid provisions, must be of such a knife which should answer the description specified in the notification issued under Section 4 of the arms Act. The notification which was in force at the relevant time was No. 13/203/78- home (G ). What is prohibited under the notification is possession of a knife having a length of 7. 62 cm. and a width of 7. 2 cm or above. In the charge framed against a-5 (Paresh Mohan Desai) there is no averment that he possessed a knife of the above description. Nor is there any indication in the document evidencing seizure of the knife regarding its width. In view of the total absence of anything in the evidence that A-5 possessed a knife of the description specified in the notification, he would be entitled to an acquittal of the said offence. "from the above paragraph, it is seen that the charge against A-5 in that case was under Section 25 (1b) (b) of the Act, which reads as follows:"whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under Section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section. "section 4 of the Act reads : licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases. If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than fire-arms should also be regulated, it may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or description as may be specified in that notification unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. ( 5 ) FROM a reading of the FIR in this case it is seen that petitioner is accused of brandishing a knife in a public place hurling out abuses and threats to the public on the road, which is not covered by section 25 (1b) (b) of the Act, but would be covered by Section 25 (1a) of the act, which prescribes the punishment for violation of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, as per which exposure etc. , of a firearm or any other arm of such class or description, as may be prescribed, without having a licence is an offence. "prescribed" is defined in Section 2 (1) (8) of the Act as prescribed by the Rules made under the act . arms defined in Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act includes sharp edged and other deadly weapons. As per Rule 3 of the arms Rules, 1962 (the Rules) classification of the arms and ammunitions is as per the enumeration made in Schedule 1 of the rules. As per Entry V of Schedule I of the rules, read with Rule 19 of the Rules, arms other than fire-arms; Sharp-edged and deadly weapons, v/z-Swords (including swords-sticks), daggers, bayonets, spears (including lances and javelins; battieaxes, knives including Kripans and Khukries) and other such weapons with blades longer than 9" or wider than 2" other than those designed for domestic, agricultural scientific or industrial purposes steel batton; "zipo" and other such weapons called "life preservers"; machinery for making arms other than category II, and any other arms which the Central government may notify under Section 4 can be in possession of a person only with a licence because Rule 19 of the Rules reads : unless the Central or State Government by notification in the official Gazette so directs, no licence shall be required for the manufacture, sale, possession for sale, or test, of Arms of category V except in the areas notified under Section 4. ( 6 ) THE Panchanama in this case shows the length of the knife in possession of the petitioner as 16. 5" including the wooden handle of length of 4". So it is seen that the length of the blade is 12. 5", which is longer than 9" mentioned in Entry V of schedule I to the Rules. ( 6 ) THE Panchanama in this case shows the length of the knife in possession of the petitioner as 16. 5" including the wooden handle of length of 4". So it is seen that the length of the blade is 12. 5", which is longer than 9" mentioned in Entry V of schedule I to the Rules. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, it cannot, prima-facie, be said that registration of FIR under Section 25 of the Act against the petitioner is improper. Question whether petitioner had intended to use the said knife as a weapon of attack or not, and whether he was actually found on the street on the date of incident or not, are all matters to be investigated into. ( 8 ) AS per the ratio in State of karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, 2002 (1) ald (Crl.) 412 (SC) = 2002 (3) SCC 89 and M. Naravana Das v. State of karnataka, 2003 (11) SCC 251 , while deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. this Court has to look into the allegations in the complaint to find out if those allegations make out an offence or not, and cannot take into consideration the defence of the accused and if the allegations in the FIR, if taken to be true, disclose the offence allegedly, the FIR cannot be quashed. Since the allegations in the FIR in this prima- facie disclose an offence under Section 25 (1) of the Act, the contention that FIR does not disclose any offence under the Act cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) QUESTION whether petitioner committed an offence under Section 506 ipc or not, and if the acts alleged against the petitioner amount to any offence under any section of IPC, is a matter to be! investigated into and so I do not find any grounds to quash the FIR and hence the petition is dismissed.