Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 349 (MP)

Lavkesh Reddy v. State of M. P.

2008-03-03

SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) APPLICANT has preferred this revision against the appellate judgment dated 14. 07. 1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Shahdol in criminal Appeal No. 62/98, whereby the conviction of the applicant under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act recorded by Chief Judicial magistrate, Shahdol has been upheld. ( 2. ) APPLICANT was tried for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol. As per prosecution allegations, on 17. 04. 97, at about 2 "o"clock at Shahdol, a. S. I. K. K. Tripathi on receiving a secret information, reached at Kiran talkies chowk and found that applicant was having a "khukri" type knife in his hand, without licence and was intimidating the public. The knife was seized from the applicant before the panch witnesses. Applicant was arrested. An offence was registered against him and was investigated. After due investigation, applicant was prosecuted under section 25 of Arms Act. ( 3. ) AFTER trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol found the applicant guilty for unlawful possession of a knife and convicted him under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- by the judgment dated 03. 03. 1998 passed in criminal case No. 282/97. ( 4. ) IN criminal appeal preferred by the applicant against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial magistrate, Shahdol the appellate court, after considering the evidence on record, affirmed the conviction of the applicant but modified and reduced the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment to a term of three months by the impugned judgment, which has been assailed by the applicant in this revision. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the courts below erred in law and facts in convicting and sentencing the applicant. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment and supported the findings recorded by the courts below. ( 7. ) IMPUGNED judgment and records of the lower courts perused. ( 8. ) APPLICANT was charged under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms act for being in unlawful possession of a knife in contravention of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act. The M. P. Govt. ( 7. ) IMPUGNED judgment and records of the lower courts perused. ( 8. ) APPLICANT was charged under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms act for being in unlawful possession of a knife in contravention of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act. The M. P. Govt. notification No. 6312-6552-II-B (i) dated 22nd November, 1974 issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act prohibits the acquisition, possession and carrying of sharp edged weapons with a blade more than 6" long and 2" wide or spring actuated knife with a blade of any size in a public place without holding any licence in that behalf. The acquisition and possession of carrying of any arm in contravention of the notification issued under Section 4 is punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act. ( 9. ) HOWEVER, the evidence on record did not specifically disclose that the knife said to have been seized from the applicant was having a blade of prohibited dimension. P. W.-1 Sher Ali never stated about the length or width of the knife said to have been seized from the applicant. A. S. I. K. K. Tripathi (P. W.-3), who seized the knife from the applicant failed to specifically mention in his evidence as to what was the actual size of the blade of the seized knife. He simply said that he had seized one beeta and eight fingers long knife from the applicant vide Ex. P-1. But he did not disclose as to what was actually the length or width of the blade of the seized knife, which was legally necessary to ascertain, if the applicant was in possession of a knife having blade of prohibited dimension. Even the seizure memo (Ex. P-1) is quite vague on the point. It only mentions that the blade of the knife was one beeta three fingers long without specifying its length or width in inches. In such a situation, in absence of any specific evidence, it could not presumed that the length of the blade of the seized knife was actually more than six inches long or two inches wide. ( 10. It only mentions that the blade of the knife was one beeta three fingers long without specifying its length or width in inches. In such a situation, in absence of any specific evidence, it could not presumed that the length of the blade of the seized knife was actually more than six inches long or two inches wide. ( 10. ) THE two courts below thus erred in law and facts in holding that the applicant was found in possession of a knife having blade of prohibited length or dimension as specified in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act (supra ). As such, the conviction of the applicant under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act for unlawful possession of a knife in contravention of the notification issued under section 4 of the Arms Act, cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside in revision. ( 11. ) REVISION petition is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the applicant recorded under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act and sentence passed on him are set aside and applicant is acquitted of the charge.