Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. Perused the material on record. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 10.2.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in revision affirming the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Cr. Case No. 61/2013 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 336 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi restricted his arguments to the extent of charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contends that it is an admitted position that the fire-arm used by the petitioner in the alleged incident was a licensed one and as such he urged that the trial court committed a grave error of law while framing charge against the petitioner for the said offence. He thus implored the Court to quash the charge under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 4. Learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the firearm used by the petitioner was licensed one. 5. For appreciating the arguments advanced at the bar, the relevant provisions of law i.e. Section 5 and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act are reproduced here-in-below:- "5. Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition-1[(1)] No person shall- (a) 2[use, manufacture,] sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or (b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. * * * * 3[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a person may, without holding a licence in this behalf, sell or transfer any arms or ammunition which he lawfully possesses for his own private use to another person who is entitled by virtue of this Act, or any other law for the time being in force to have, or is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having in his possession such arms or ammunition : Provided that no firearm or ammunition in respect of which a licence is required under section 3 and no arms in respect of which a licence is required under section 4 shall be so sold or transferred by any person unless (a) he has informed in writing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station of his intention to sell or transfer such firearms, ammunition or other arms and the name and address of the person to whom he intends to sell or transfer such firearms, ammunition or the other arms, and (b) a period of not less than forty-five days has expired after the giving of such information.] 2[27. punishment for using arms, etc.-(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death." 6. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death." 6. From a perusal of these provisions, it is apparent that the culpability for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act arises only if the firearm is used in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act which provides that no person shall use, manufacture sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. 7. Since admittedly a valid licence was issued in the name of the petitioner for the possession and use of the firearm in question apparently the trial court committed manifest error apparent on the face of record while directing framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders cannot stand to scrutiny so far as the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned. 9. The misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.2.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar and the order dated 17.10./2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar as well as all proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act are quashed. However, trial of the petitioner shall continue for the offence under Section 336 IPC.