MURLI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Murli who has been convicted and sentenced Under Section 19(a) of the Arms Act for manufacturing parts of a pistol in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 of the Arms Act. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. In revision it has been contended in this Court that the parts alleged to have been recovered from the applicant were not parts of a pistol and there was no evidence in support of it. Unfortunately the material exhibits of the case which were sent for by the Court in order to convince itself as to whether the parts recovered were parts of a pistol are not now available. On 11-1-1955, when the revision was preferred an order was passed by Mukerji, J. to the effect that the material exhibits be sent for. The learned Sessions Judge has reported that the material exhibits could not be despatched as they were either sold or destroyed. The material exhibits ought not to have been destroyed before the disposal of the revision. Two pieces of iron pipes were said to have been recovered from the applicant and it was alleged that those iron pipes were intended for barrel of pistol. The prosecution contended that the applicant was boring holes in those pipes when the police made the raid. There was no evidence on the record to show that those iron pipes were really intended to serve as barrel of a pistol, nor was there any evidence to show that the butt that was recovered from under-ground was to be used as a butt of a pistol. In order to sustain a charge Under Section 19(a) of the Arms Act it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the accused was found manufacturing any arms or ammunition in contravention of the provisions of Section 5. Before stray pieces of metal can be held to be parts of a fire arm it must be shown that they are either definite parts of a fire-arm in a reasonable condition or a series of old parts which without the addition of too many new parts or the expenditure of an unreasonable amount of labour could be metamorphosed into a lethal fire arm. The matter is in each case largely one of discretion of the Court concerned. In the present case there was no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the pieces of metal that were found were parts of a fire-arm or they were old parts which could be converted into fire-arm. The conviction of the applicant Under Section 19(a) cannot be sustained.

(2.) The application in revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside.