Sayeed Uddin vs State of U.P.

P.N. Harkauli, J.—Sayeed Uddin applicant was convicted u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to six month''s R. I. by the Addl, City Magistrate. He preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Ist Civil & Sessions Judge, Allahabad who maintained the conviction of the applicant but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 100/-. Hence this revision.

The prosecution case was that on 6th January, 1972 at 10 a. m. in Mohalla Attarsuiya, district Allahabad the applicant was found in possession of a knife the blade of which was more than 10 16 cm. in length without a license.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in this case the applicant was convicted for being in possession of a knife the blade of which was of a length prohibited not by any provision of the Arms Act or by any rules framed under that Act but by a notification said to have been issued prohibiting the keeping of a knife with a blade of this size. Relying upon the ruling of this Court reported in 1972 ACrR 363 State of U.P. v. Munna, the learned Counsel argued that the prosecution ought to have filed a copy of the notification in the case and the number and date of the notification should have been mentioned in the charge as also in the charge sheet but none of these things was done in the present case and therefore the conviction was bad.

In the aforesaid ruling it has been observed as follows:

When any act is an offence by virtue of a clear provision contained in any Act or the rules framed thereunder, it is sufficient to mention the particular section or the rule to give notice to the accused of the charge against him. But when any act is said to be an offence by virtue of a notification issued under any Act, it is necessary that either a copy of the notification be placed on the record of the case or the number and date of the notification is mentioned in the charge sheet, preferably, also in the question put to the accused or in the charge framed against him so that the accused may have notice of the precise nature of the charge that he has to meet. This was not done in the instant case.

It is not disputed that in the present case the notification prohibiting the keeping of a knife with a blade of this length was not filed nor was its date and number mentioned either in the charge or in the charge sheet. Therefore, in view of the ruling mentioned above it must be held that the conviction was bad.

Accordingly, the revision application is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the applicant are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.