Indian
Arms Act; it is incumbent upon prosecution to prove that
the arms found with accused falls in category of prohibited
arms as defined ... 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
accused persons and evidence also shows that accused persons
were armed with fire arms and on the order of Superintendent of
Police ... Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Section 27(2) of Arms Act provides that whoever uses any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition
accused persons and evidence also shows that accused persons
were armed with fire arms and on the order of Superintendent of
Police ... Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Section 27(2) of Arms Act provides that whoever uses any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition
appellants have submitted that prosecution has made
out case that prohibited arms and ammunitions have been recovered from the
appellantsJohan Sanjay Lamay and Sohan ... Arms Act which reads as under:
"2(i) "prohibited arms" means
(I) firearms so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied
favour.
56. As far as case under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act is
concerned, the Prosecution has completely failed to establish its case ... used in
commissioning the crime falls under the category of "prohibited arm".
Even the length of the knife has not been proved
under Section 307 / 186 / 353 / 34 IPC & 27/54/59
Arms Act . He has further deposed that on superficial
search of accused Satish, recovery ... pant. He has further deposed that sketch of
the said recovered prohibited arms and ammunition
were prepared by him and the same was proved
which life is enjoyed.
The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body
or amputation of an arm or leg or the putting
Sheri No. 63, the
accused Vinod, armed with sword and the accused-
Ramesh, Madhavji and Parshuram Kevalram armed with
knives ran after Parshottambhai Mangalbhai ... Bombay Police Act by
violating Notification of prohibition to keep arms which
was in force in the Jamnagar district, by possessing
deadly weapons.
On reading
weapon so as to
cover the case under Section 27 of the Arms Act. There is
no force in this contention of the learned counsel ... time of robbery, he was armed with a
deadly weapon i.e. knife which is prohibited as per
notification
respondent -Satyanarayan who gave blow of stick on his head
and arm, hence it would be apparent that only respondent
Satyanarayan had assaulted the complainant ... respondents had
participated in the crime they were armed with stick and
virtually they prohibited the deceased Gajanand not to plough
the field but when
