BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.96 passed by shri M.L Tiwari, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, Guna. It has arisen out of the following facts.

(2.) THE prosecution claimed that the applicant was found in possession of a sword measuring 3 Balist 10 Angul on 1.2.91 of which he had no licence, at the time of his arrest in the Haar of village Raipura. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record held the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him under that section to a term of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. An appeal was preferred against that order which was rejected by the learned appellate Court. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have considered the contentions raised before me. First of all I take the contention regarding charge, A perusal of the charge shows that the learned Court below appears to have mentioned in his own hind the charge U/S 25 (a) Arms Act. It we peruse the Arms Act there is no such section 25 (a), rather, the section is "25 (1) (a) or 25 (1 -A)". Section 15 (1) (a) relates to manufacture, sale, transfer, convert, repairs etc. of any arm or ammunition in contravention of section 5 whereas Sub -section (1 -A) relates to possession or carrying of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of S. 7. Thus, both of these provisions do not relate to sword which is alloged to have been found in possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that under section 25 (1 -B) (b) which makes a provision for acquisition or possession or carrying in any place specified by notification u/s 4 any arms of such class or description as had been specified in that notification in contravention of that section. He referred to the aforesaid notification and pointed out that the aforesaid notification prohibiting the acquisition, possession and carrying of sharp edged weapon with a blade more than 6" long 2 inches wide and spring actuated knives with a blade of any size in public places. Thus, it is clear that the charge was not properly framed. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have any knowledge about the offence with respect of which he had framed the charge and the charge was framed mechanically. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was necessary in such cases that the notification under which prohibition with respect to certain arms was made should have been mentioned in the charge itself in order to acquaint the accused with the offence. However, it may be mentioned that in view of S. 215 Cr.P.C. unless it is shown that by any error or omission the offence is by virtue of any notification made under any law the notification must be mentioned in the charge.