no fire arms came to be seized from the possession of the petitioner and therefore, he cannot be charged for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) & 27 of Indian Arms Act . Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as hereunder:- “25. Punishment for certain offences---[(1) Whoever— (a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or (b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of section 6 ; or xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx” Section 27 of the Arms Act reads as hereunder:- 27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death”. = It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the person who supplied arms to A-1 and A-2 nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is found in possession of any fire arm. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no material placed on record by the prosecution to charge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of Indian Arms Act.- Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of discharging the petitioner of the accusations leveled against him under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.583 of 2013

ORDER:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 13-03-2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1037 of 2013 in C.C.No.797 of 2009 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by A-3-Bhunampalli Madan Mohan Reddy under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

2.     Facts, in brief, giving raise to filing of this petition by B.MadanMohan Reddy/A-3 in C.C.No.797 of 2009 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are:-
        LW-1-B.Dhanunjaya, Inspector of Police,  Task Force, Central Zone, Hyderabad city received credible information on 20-5-2002 at 1800 hours regarding movement of four persons armed with fire arms, under suspicious circumstances near Swathi Hotel, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad.  He along with his staff, proceeded to Paradise Circle, Secunderabad and apprehended  A-1-Ankireddy  Chandra Sekhar Reddy, A-2-Lakkireddy  Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy @ Bhaskar Reddy @ Bhaskar, A-3-Bhumpally Madan Moahn Reddy @ Madan @  Madan Mohan, A-4-Malishetti Bhanu Kiran @ Bhanu. A-1 and A-2  were found in possession of one revolver with six rounds each. The revolvers  found in possession of A-1 and A-2 and mobile phones came to be seized under the cover of a panchanama.  Pursuant to the confession of A-1, A-5 to A-8 came to be arrested on the intervening night of 20/21-5-2002.  A-1 led the police to the place of A-9 and thereupon, A-9 came to be arrested  at 04.20 hours.  The accused  led the police to the house of A-10 at Sayeedabad and the police took him into custody at 06.10 hours.  The further  investigation  revealed that A-1 to A-3 are close associates  of life convict Suryanarayana Reddy @ Suri in Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case and they are members of gang  of hired killers in twin cities. A-2 is a member of “Red Star Dalam” involved in many murder cases and two N.B.Ws are pending against him at Anantapur and Tadipatri.  A-1 in association with A-2, A-3 and A-4 planned in a big way  to execute  hired kills for material gain in twin cities.  As per their plan, A-1 procured two revolvers  and 12 live catridges from A-4 through A-7.  He also procured   two more country made revolvers  from A-6 and supplied the same  to A-15, who is underground through A-14 about a fortnight back.  A-1 took an advance of Rs.65,000/- from A-10-K.Narasimha Reddy, to eliminate his staunch rival Shabbaz Khan of Khairatabad.  The timely arrest of the accused persons prevented  a major mishap in twin cities.

3.     LW-1-B.Dhanunjaya, Inspector of Police,  Task Force, Central Zone, Hyderabad city presented a complaint before the S.I of Police, Ramgopalpet P.S.  LW-8-D.Upendra Reddy, S.I of Police, Ramgopalpet P.S received  a complaint and registered  a case in Crime No.86 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 25(1)(a) & 27 of Indian Arms Act and Sections 109, 120-B IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act read with 34 IPC.  After due investigation,  Lw-11-V.David, Sub Inspector of Police, laid charge sheet in the court of  XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.  The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.797 of 2009.

4.     A-3-B.Madan Mohan Reddy filed Crl.M.P.No.1037 of 2013 under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge.   The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record  and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion  that A-3-B.Madan Mohan Reddy failed to make out any valid grounds for discharge of the offences with which he is accused of  and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order dated 13-3-2013. Hence this Criminal Revision Case by A-3-B.Madan Mohan Reddy.

5.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

6.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner  that no fire arms came to be seized  from the possession of the petitioner  and therefore, he cannot be  charged for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) & 27 of Indian Arms Act .  Learned counsel took me to the panchanama under which two revolvers came to be seized.

7.     As seen from the panchanama dated 21-5-2002; two country made revolvers, one each came to be seized from the possession of A-1 and A-2. No firearms came to be seized from the possession of petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-3.  Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as hereunder:-
“25. Punishment for certain offences---[(1) Whoever—
(a)  manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes  or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms  or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b)  shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of section 6 ; or
xxxxxxxx                 xxxxxx                  xxxxxx”

Section 27 of the Arms Act reads as hereunder:-

27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to  imprisonment  for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death”.
           
8.     It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the person who supplied arms to A-1 and A-2 nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is found in possession of any fire arm.  In that view of the matter, I find that there is no material placed on record by the prosecution to charge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of Indian Arms Act.

9.     Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of discharging the petitioner of the accusations leveled against him under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.03-04-2013

RAR
       



















s

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515