VARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 1143/2014 of Peechi Police Station, registered for offence under Section 20 of the Arms Act. The Police after investigation has submitted Annexure-A4 final report/charge-sheet in the impugned Crime No. 1143/2014 of Peechi Police Station, which has led to the institution of Calendar Case, CC No. 3344/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur. Annexure-A5 is the summons issued by the Magistrate's Court against the petitioner to answer the charge under Section 20 of the Arms Act. The allegation is that the Police party had seized a sporting rifle belonging to the petitioner while on patrol duty. It is pointed out that the petitioner had made application before the jurisdictional Magistrate for grant interim custody of the sporting rifle seized in connection with the crime in question and thereupon, the Magistrate as per Annexure-A3 order dated 12/08/2104 had ordered interim custody to be granted to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has also made the following observations in paragraph 5 of Annexure-A3 said order, which reads as follows:

(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner is the licensed owner of the sporting rifle in question. The gist of the prosecution case is that the said rifle along with its cover, ammunition in 15 numbers and a magazine were found lying in an abandoned State near NH 47 at western side of Kombazhakaradikkundu road. That those items were seen by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peechi Police Station and his Police party during night patrol at 4.45 a.m. on 20/07/14. Thereupon the same was seized, which led to the registration of Annexure-A1 crime. According to the petitioner, three dogs belonging to the petitioner's friend had ran away while opening the door of its cage and the petitioner and his friend ran in opposite direction in search of the dogs and that the petitioner had carried his licensed sport rifle along with him, since it was dark. That when he reached near the national highway, suddenly a jeep stopped near him and apprehending that they had come to rob him, the petitioner ran away, but accidentally the sports rifle slipped from his hand. That the same could not be traced out and later it was learnt that the Police had seized the sports rifle in connection with the aforementioned crime.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner is that the sole offence charged against the petitioner is one under Section 20 of the Arms Act. That the said provision is only a preventive section and it is not an offence punishable under the Arms Act and therefore it is contended that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner to answer charge under Section 20 of the Arms Act is not maintainable and that he is having due licence for possessing the said rifle and no other offences under the Arms Act are made out.