GUNWANTLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Special Leave challenging the judgment of the High Court which dismissed a Revision petition filed by the appellant against the framing of a charge by the Magistrate of the Ist Class, Neemuch. The charge was that on or before 17-9-1966 at Neemuch, the appellant was found in possession of and having control over one revolver without a valid licence and that by so doing had committee an offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) It appears that one Miroo who was accused of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code gave information to the Police on 16-9-66, during the course of an investigation of that offence, that the appellant had given him a revolver which he had kept with one Chhaganlal at the Village Karoonda in the State Rajasthan. On that information, the revolver was seized from the said Chhaganlal on the next day namely on 17-9-1966. The Police at Neemuch applied for sanction under Section 39 of the Act to prosecute the appellant for an offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Act. The sanction was granted by the District Magistrate, Neemuch on 4-11-1967. The sanction states that the appellant had "allegedly been found in possession of and having under his control one revolver without a valid licence at Neemuch Police Station, Neemuch on 17-9-1966." After the sanction, the Police prosecuted the appellant on 16-1-1968 as stated already in the Ist Class Magistrate's Court, Neemuch. The Magistrate after perusal of the case diary and other papers and after hearing the appellant, by his Order date 23-9-1968 was of the view that there was a prima facie case for framing a charge against the appellant under S. 25 (1) (a) of the Act and he accordingly framed the charge in respect of which a revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch. This revision was rejected on 19-12-1968 and thereafter another revision was filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Before the High Court, it appears the only contention urged was that the charge went beyond the sanction in that while the sanction specifically mentions that the applicant had been found in possession of the revolver at the Police Station, Neemuch on 17-9-1966, the charge speaks of his having been found in such possession "on or before 17-9-1966" which words are vague and not according to the sanction, as such the charge was bad. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the words "on or before" would not render the charge illegal inasmuch as even on the date of recovery, the applicant could be said to be in possession of the revolver, and whether the charge is substantiated or not could be decided only after the Magistrate proceeds with the trial, records the evidence and determines the credibility of the witnesses thereon. The High Court also thought that the Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the revision was of the view that before the actual recovery of the revolver the appellant was in possession at some point of time and he was in constructive possession thereof on the date of its recovery. In these circumstances, it saw no illegality or impropriety in framing the charge and accordingly dismissed the revision.

(3.) Before us the learned advocate for the appellant contends that the High Court has palpably misconstrued the case of Gokul Chand v. The King, 75 Ind App 30 a case where it was held that a charge cannot go beyond the scope of the sanction, (2) that admittedly as the revolver was seized from Chhaganlal from Karoonda in the State of Rajasthan, the Court at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh has no jurisdiction to try the case against the appellant who was a resident of Neemuch in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and (3) that it was Miroo who is alleged to have handed over the pistol to Chhaganlal after receiving it from the accused, which would show that the revolver was not in the constructive possession of the appellant on 17-9-1966.