Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Mufassil P.S. Case No. 305/2009, dated 09.12.2009, under, Sections 25(1-A)/ 25 (1-AA)/25(1- B)AC/26(1)(2)(3)/35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Mufassil P.S. Case No. 52/09, dated 5.3.2009, under Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25 (1-B)AC/ 26(i)(ii)(iii)/35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. Mufassil P.S. Case No. 118/09, dated 08.05.2009, under Sections 324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

15. From what have been re-produced above, it can be easily gathered that within the three cases, which became the foundation for the impugned order of externment, two cases were registered under the Arms Act, 1959, and the solitary case, under the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was Mufassil Police Station Case No. 118 of 2009.

16. From the definition of anti-social element, which we have depicted above, it can be easily noticed that a person would be regarded as an anti-social element within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, if he has been convicted of an offence under Sections 25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act, 1959. In none of the two cases, which have been registered under the Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner has yet been, admittedly, convicted.

23. More-over, even Mufassil Police Station Case No. 118 of 2009 allegedly involves commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. In such circumstances, without conviction of the petitioner under any of the penal provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, it was impossible to bring him within the ambit of anti-social element as defined by Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.