Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.73 seconds)Section 2 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy And Anr on 27 July, 2004
―5. It is trite law that the power of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised
ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of the
Court but should not be exercised to stifle legitimate
prosecution and the High Court cannot assume the
role of a Trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability of evidence and sustainability of
accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such
evidence. However, if on the face of the charge-sheet
the ingredients of the offences are not disclosed, the
High Court would be within its power to quash a
frivolous proceedings. [See State of A.P. Vs. Golconda
Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013
"For prosecution under the Arms Act, it needs to be
proved that the accused had the knowledge or
consciousness of possession. "Possession", for the
purposes of prosecution must mean possession with
the requisite mental element, i.e. conscious
possession and not mere custody without awareness
(refer to Gunwantlal vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 1756; Sanjay Dutt vs. State
through CBI, Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410)."
State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977
17. The above discussion would ordinarily have
resulted in this Court relegating the matter after
answering the questions referred to - in the manner
indicated above. However, having regard to the
circumstances, all that remains to be seen is whether
the petitioner's claim for quashing is merited. Having
regard to the earlier conclusion recorded, as far as
the facts of this case go, an on an application of the
law declared by Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.
Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 and State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr.
AIR 2004 SC 3967 that the charges can be framed
only when there is "reasonable suspicion" or
sufficient material of the alleged offender having
committed the offence -which is entirely absent in the
circumstances of the present case - the impugned
FIR (FIR No.158/2014) and all proceeding
emanating from it deserve to be and is, accordingly,
quashed." (emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(CRL) 2393/2021 Page 5 of 9
Signing Date:09.02.2022
16:09
The Division Bench had quashed the FIR in the above mentioned case.