Allowed

Prabhash Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Nov 2017CRR/198/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court set aside conviction and acquitted appellant under Arms Act. Revision held as sanction must be granted by District Magistrate as per Cr.P.C, not Additional, invalidating proceedings where firearm was not produced.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; applicant reported to be on bail; bail bonds discharged.

Prabhash Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 198 of 2004

¶5

Prabhash Kumar Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Sadanand Singh Bhadoriya, Resident of Contractor Colony, Supela, P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District – Durg (Chhattisgarh).

¶6

----Revisioner/applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

¶9

---- Non Revisioner/Respondent For Revisioner/applicant : Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate For Non-revisioner : Shri Lav Sharma, Penal Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

¶11

Order On Board

¶12

17.11.2017

¶13

1. This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 22.03.2004 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge Durg, in Criminal appeal No. 62/2004, wherein the said Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revisioner against the judgment dated 22.04.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg, in Criminal case No. 401/2002, wherein said Court convicted the accused/applicant under Section 25 (1-b) A of the Arms Act, 1959

¶14

¶15

and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.

¶16

2. As per prosecution case, on receiving information the police officers searched the accused/applicant and found one country made Revolver (Katta) in his possession and offence under Section 25 (1-b) of Arms Act, 1959 was registered against him. After trial, the trial Court convicted accused/applicant as mentioned above and in appeal the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant.

¶17

3. Legal issue involved for decision of this revision is whether sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act, 1959 is legal and whether the said firearm was seized as per law and kept it in safe custody. 4. Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 may be read as under:-

¶18

Previous sanction of the District Magistrate necessary in certain cases :- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate.

¶19

Section 39 of the Arms Act, commands that sanction must be granted by District Magistrate. As per Section 21 of the Cr.P.C, The State Government may appoint, as many person as it think fit, Executive Magistrates, and one of them to be District Magistrate. From the word of the provision, it is clear that only one Executive Magistrate will be appointed as District Magistrate and no other magistrate can be called as District Magistrate.

¶20

¶21

5. In the present case as per evidence of Narayan Rao Gayakaward (PW/3) who was Assistant Grade-II, at the relevant time, the Additional District Magistragte has granted sanction in this case.

¶22

6. As per Section 21 of the Cr.P.C. Additional District Magistrate is not the District Magistrate, therefore, any sanction granted by him is not in accordance with law. Again, this witness disposed that while granting sanction no firearms like (Katta) was produced before the said Magistrate. Unless the sanctioning authority looks itself the instrument in respect of which sanction is sought, he cannot be said to have any idea regarding firearms. When the instrument was not produced before the said Magistrate it cannot be said that the said Magistrate has applied his mind while granting sanction. As additional Magistrate was not competent to grant sanction and as the firearms was not produced before the authority, sanction is not proved in peculiar circumstance of the case. Section 39 of the Arms Act is barring provisions for taking cognizance and unless sanction is valid no cognizance can be taken and no trial can be conducted, therefore, the trial against the applicant is invalid.

¶23

7. Jalamsingh Sharma (PW-1) and Aditya Sharma (PW-2) deposed that one country made firearms (katta) was seized from the applicant but it is not clear from their evidence whether they sealed the same on the spot and whether same was kept in safe custody of Police Station and the same is sent for examination from the safe custody. No evidence is adduced regarding safe custody of firearms. Though Jaipal Sahu (PW-8) deposed that he examined the firearms but when it was not sealed on the spot and

¶24

¶25

the same was not kept in safe custody it cannot be inferred that the said firearms was operational.

¶26

8. Looking to the legal aspects of the matter, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 25(1-b) of the Arms Act. The revision succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revisioner is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charges for which he has been convicted. The applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE

¶29

Santosh/Pawan

Prabhash Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhash Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samlu Ram Vs the State of C.G.

Sahasram Vs Smt. Kamleshwari Sahu and Oth.

Bhagwat Verma Vs Malati Bai Verma

Gaurishankar Nirmalkar Vs Priya Nirmalkar

Pushpendra Vishwakarma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Priya Nirmalkar Vs Gaurishankar Nirmalkar