Delhi District Court
State vs Farukh Ahmed on 2 March, 2007
State Vs Farukh Ahmed
FIR No. 229/87
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY BANSAL
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi
State Vs Farukh Ahmed
FIR No. 229/87
PS Tilak Marg
Under Sec 25/54/59 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
a. Serial no. of the case :123/02
b. Name of complainant :Ct. Ram NIwas
c. Date of offence :23/07/1987
d. Name of the accused :Farukh Ahmed
and his parentage S/o Abdul Khalid
address R/O Makhdhup Pur
PS Sukal Bazar District Sultanpur,
U.P
e. Offence complained :U/S25/54/59 Arms Act
f. Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
g. Final order :Acquitted
h. Date of such order : 02/03/2007
Brief reasons for decision:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 23/7/1987 Ct Ram Niwas was on duty with HC Randhir singh, CT Rajpal, CT Jaibir Singh and CT. Gyan Singh at Mathura Road, Bahiron Road, T-point. At about 11.30 P.M when they were checking vehicles plying on the road, TSR NO DLR 9955 was also checked in Page 1 of 6 State Vs Farukh Ahmed FIR No. 229/87 which one Farukh Ahmed/accused was traveling and he was having a box of black colour. When it was opened it contained one 'Bowie design' knife and four 'Jambia design' knives. All the five knives were seized and accused was arrested.
2. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. Accused was summoned. Section 207 CrPC was complied with. Charge was framed against the accused on 19/8/93 for the offences U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined PW-1 Ct Ram Niwas, PW-2 Ct. Karan Chand , PW-3 Ct Jaibir, PW-4 Nirlep Singh, PW-5 SI Ved Prakash (Retd.,), PW-6 CT Karan Chand and PW-7 Retd SI Niranjan Singh .
4. PW-1 deposed that on 23-24/7/87 he was posted at P.S Tlilak Marg. At about 11.30 P.M TSR DLR 9925 came from the side of Tilak Bridge in which one man was sitting. When it was checked, the passenger was having a bag which was heavy. Bag was checked and it contained five knives. PW-1 handed over accused to ASI Niranjan Singh. Knives were taken into possession and pulanda was prepared with seal of NS. Seal was given to TSR driver. PW-1 identified his signature on seizure memo EX.PW1/A and B. He also exhibited the sketches of the knives as EX.PW1/C to EX.PW1/G. He also identified the case property which is EX.P-1 to P-5.
IN cross examination some documents Mark A to J were put to witness and he does not remember whether copies of the same were also recovered in the brief case. PW-1 denied suggestion that the accused told IO that the knives were decorative knives. It has come that accused told IO that he is working for a company and was taking the knives on behalf of the company. Page 2 of 6
State Vs Farukh Ahmed FIR No. 229/87
5. PW-2 also deposed about the TSR no DLR 9955 being stopped by other Ct. He also deposed with the fact of recovery. His examination in chief was deferred as case property was not produced on that day.
5. PW-3 also deposed regarding recovery of the knife and identified the case property. He deposed that IO measured all the knives. One knife was found 37.5 cm and 13 cm and other four knives were 41.5 cm. PW-3 was cross examined by APP also. He deposed that number of TSR might be DLR 9955. He also deposed that one knife was of 'Bowie design' and others were of 'Jambia design'. He also admitted that knife of Bowie design was measuring total 37.5 cm out of which handle was 13 cm. The other four knives were having blade of 29.5 cm length and handle of 12 cm. He also admitted that seal was handed over to TSR driver. Brief case was taken into possession vide seizure memo EX.PW1/A and identified his signature on all the memos and identified the accused also. He also identified the case property.
IN the cross it has come that accused did not try to run away when the TSR was came. It has also come that the accused was having some documents in his possession but he cannot tell what were those documents.
6. PW-4 is the driver of the TSR. He has turned hostile in some aspects but has deposed that knives were recovered from accused. However he could not identify the accused and the case property.
7. PW-5 was the DO and had recorded FIR copy of which is EX.PW5/A.
8. PW-6 was also present on the spot when TSR was checked and deposed about recovery of knives. In his cross examination also it has come that documents mark A to J might have been recovered from the brief case. Page 3 of 6
State Vs Farukh Ahmed FIR No. 229/87
8. PW-7 is the IO and he deposed about investigation. He deposed about preparing sketches, site plan etc. He also identified the case property and the accused. In his cross examination he denied that accused was having the documents regarding export order. He had no knowledge whether there are any notifications bearing no F-10(59)-68 AC-III 2676 dated 25/03/1967 issued by District Magistrate Delhi and F-11(23)-68- PIV, Govt. Of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 25/10/1968.
9. The accused in his statement u/s 313 CR.P.C stated that he was working as an employee of M/S Windless Steel, Dehradoon which manufactures and exports knives and cookrey. He stated that there was an export order regarding the five knives recovered from him which he was taking for delivery to M/S Frax Forwarding & Travels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi for custom clearance for dispatch to USA. He stated that the knives were decorative knives. Further he stated that vide notification no F-10(59)/68-AC-III/2676 dated 25/03/69 sec.4 of the Arms Act did not apply regarding export of sharp edged weapons.
10. In his defence evidence accused examined Satish Panthri, Export Manager from M/S Windless Steel Crafts as DW-1. He produced the originals of the documents Mark A to J and these were exhibited as DW1/A to H. Ex.DW1/A is the copy of manufacturing licence for manufacturing arms. DW1/B is copy of licence issued by Directorate of industries. DW1/C is copy of letter dated 07/10/87 received from Atlanta Cutlery from USA which was in respect to purchase of decorative knives. EX.DW1/D is copy of invoice in which it is mentioned that it is for export to Atlanta USA. EX.DW1/E is copy of instructions to forwarding agents. EX.DW1/G is the authorisation letter authorising accused Page 4 of 6 State Vs Farukh Ahmed FIR No. 229/87 to carry the sample of five decorative knives for delivery to its forwarding agents.
11. Ld cl for accused has not disputed recovery of the knives from the accused but submits that those knives were decorative knives and were meant for export to USA which is evident from the documents EX.DW1/A to H.
12. I have considered the submissions of ld cl. The documents produced during defence evidence indeed show that there was an export order received by company of the accused and it was about five decorative knives. The knives i.e the case property are indeed decorative knives. As noted above the accused did not try to run away which shows that there was no criminal intent of the accused. Ld counsel for accused filed a certified copy of a Judgment dated 24/12/83 passed in CRL. Appeal no 44/79 and delivered by Smt. Usha Mehra Ld. ASJ (as His Lordship then was). In this Judgment reference is made to a notification whereby requirement of licence in respect of export of Arms was waived. Ld counsel for accused relies upon this judgment and submits that it shows that there was a notification exempting requirement of licence for keeping arms when the arms were meant for export. Record of the case reveals that the accused had made all possible efforts to bring on record this notification but could not succeed. The notification was not traceable in the records of the authorities. The accused could lay his hands upon this judgment and seeks help from it. Now except for this judgment the accused could not show any other document.
13. It is not in doubt that company of the accused deals with export of arms. The company has good reputation in the market. It is not expected from it that its employees will indulge in illegal activities related to arms. It has specifically come in the evidence that the accused was having some documents Page 5 of 6 State Vs Farukh Ahmed FIR No. 229/87 with him when he was apprehended. The facts of criminal appeal 44/79 are quite similar to the present case. Though the decision is not binding, yet it can be looked into for ascertaining the fact that there was a notification of District Magistrate, Delhi exempting requirement of licence for export of arms. In that case also, some gupties were recovered from employee of the present company and which was also meant for delivery to Miami i.e for export. It was held by the appellate court that by virtue of notification of 1969, the requirement of licence was not there as the arms were meant for export and the appellant was acquitted. In my considered opinion this judgment does show that there existed such a notification. This judgment can also be relied upon to prove the existance of the notification and its contents. Thus it stands proved that there was such notification. Considered so the accused has not committed any offence as he was carrying the arms which were meant for export and there was no licencing requirement. Documents brought on record in defence evidence also show that the knives were meant for export which leave no doubt that knives were for export.
14. In view of the above discussion the accused is acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 02/03/2007 ( Sanjay Bansal) Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi Page 6 of 6