THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.583 of 2013
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