Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. A challan vide FIR No. 97/2007 dated 26.02.2007 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and S­ 5 Explosive Substance Act and S­9B Explosive Act has been filed by SHO of Police Station Seelampur for the prosecution of accused Irshad Ali in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Trial Court after compliance of section 207 Cr. PC committed this case for trial before this court.

2. Case of prosecution is that on 26.02.2007 at 02:30 p.m. ASI Budh Prakash has received a secret information through a secret informer that one person by the name of Irshad, who used to manufacture illicit ammunition and used to supply the same in Delhi area would come in Delhi. On this information, ASI Budh Prakash had constituted a raiding party consisting himself, HC Narender, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Satbir and secret informer. They reached at the spot i.e. Near Seelampur Metro Station. At about 4:30 p.m., secret informer point out towards a person who was stood near service road carrying a school bag of green colour on his left shoulder and on enquiry he told to ASI Budh Prakash that he is Irshad. ASI Budh Prakash with the help of HC Narender had apprehended him and his bag was checked. During the search of bag it was found containing six tied plastic polythene bag of black colour, plastic bag was opened and each bag was found containing 20 cartridges each. ASI Budh Prakash had prepared sketch of sample cartridges vide Ex.PW3/B to PW3/F. IO had seized all the articles as well as green colour bag vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, ASI Budh Prakash had prepared a rukka Ex.PW5/A and got registered FIR No. 97/2007 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act against the accused. Accordingly, the accused was arrested and he was charged u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and S­5 of Explosive Act and S­9B of Explosive Substance Act.

CHARGE

3. On the basis of material available on record ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.03.2008 framed a charge against accused Irshad Ali for the offences punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act as well as Section 9B of Explosives Act and Section 5 Explosive Substance Act to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 13 witnesses namely PW1 Narender Kumar, PW2 Smt. Pushpa, PW3 Ct. Naresh, PW4 Ct. Satbir, PW5 ASI Budh Prakash, PW6 ASI Rajender, PW7 Inspector Bhaskar Sharma, PW8 B.P. Singh, Scientific Officer, PW9 HC Murari Lal, PW10 Sh. M. Bhaskar, PW11 Sh. A.R. Arora, Senior Scientific Officer, PW12 Sh. S.K. Khosla and PW13 Sh. Neeraj Thakur.

76.Before reaching any conclusion, let relevant section 25 Arms Act as well as Section 9B of Explosives Act and Section 5 Explosive Substance Act be reproduced which are as under :

25. Punishment for certain offences. ­ Whoever acquires, has in possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3;

Section 5 Explosive Substance Act. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances. Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, to which fine may be added or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, to which fine may be added.

85.In light of these observations and judgments and in view of the submissions and arguments, this court is of the considered view that under the facts and circumstances as discussed above and hearing the counsel for parties, this court do not find that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and further this court do not find any merit in the arguments of Ld. APP for state to convict the accused u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act as well as Section 9B of Explosives Act and Section 5 Explosive Substance Act as requirement of Law have not been met out. Hence, this court acquit the accused Irshad Ali from the charges u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act as well as Section 9B of Explosives Act and Section 5 Explosive Substance Act in absence of sufficient evidence by giving him benefit of doubt.