Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. If we consider the over-all evidence as adduced by the prosecution, then the conviction of the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 u/s 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act is not sustainable in law. In order to sustain the charge for the offence punishable u/s 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act; it is incumbent upon prosecution to prove that the arms found with accused falls in category of prohibited arms as defined u/s 2 [f] of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and on the date of commission of offence, there was a notification u/s 4 of the Indian Arms Act prohibiting the people from acquiring, possessing or carrying such arms in the prohibited area. Only in the eventuality, a person is found in possession of prohibited arms in contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Indian Arms Act, the offence u/s 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act attract against such person. In order to prove the offence u/s 4/25 of Arms Act, it is necessary that the prosecution must prove the issuance of such Notification and its application within the area where the accused found to be in possession of such prohibited arms. In the instant case, the prosecution has not produced any evidence in the form of Notification to sustain the charge u/s 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act. It 12 Cr.Appeal 944.2015 - [J] is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer i.e. P.S.I. Shaikh [P.W. 11] though examined by the prosecution but he has not uttered a single word about the issuance of such Notification prohibiting the possession and carrying such arms in the area where the accused alleged to have found in possession of said arms. In this view, the conviction of the appellants/accused for the offence punishable u/s 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act deserves to be set aside. I am, therefore, inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellants/accused for the offence punishable u/s 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act and acquit them for the said offence.