Thus, it is evident from the plain reading of this section that the question of being aware of existence of arms and ammunitions in the premises from where they had been recovered, comes for consideration only when it is alleged that the said premises was in joint occupation or under the joint control of such person. If there is nothing on the record to suggest that the premises, vehicle or place where the recovery was made, was in joint possession or joint control of such person, the question of second ingredient, i.e., awareness of existence of arms and ammunitions in the premises, vehicle or place, does not come into picture at all. This clearly leads to the conclusion that if there is nothing to show that the person was in joint occupation or joint control over the premises, vehicle or place from where the recovery of the arms and ammunition was made, he cannot be made liable for the offences under the Arms Act with the help of Section 35 of the said Act, even if he was aware of the existence of the arms or ammunition at that premises, vehicle or place. I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the very first ingredient is missing in the case of the petitioner and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner under any of the provisions of the Arms Act, even though it is alleged that the petitioner was aware of the existence of the arms at that particular premises.”
