"No Prosecution Qua The Offence Of Unlawful Possession Of Arms Without Previous Sanction From DM : Delhi CBI Court Acquits Former Chief Secretary Of Nagaland [Read Judgment]

On Friday, conviction of former IAS Officer and former Chief Secretary of the State of Nagaland S.S. Ahluwalia under Section 417 IPC read with Section 415 IPC, Section 471 IPC read with 467 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act was set aside by Sh. Harish Kumar, Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts. The Appellant had been convicted for having knowingly and dishonestly used forged license for purchasing two weapons and for having possessed more firearms than permissible limit of three as mentioned in Section 3 of the Arms Act. Possession of firearm in contravention of section 3 is punishable by way of Section 25 of the Arms Act. As per section 39 of the Arms Act, no prosecution can be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate. The contentions raised by the Prosecution and the Appellant and the observations by the Court are as follows: Was CBI competent to carry on investigation and file report under Section 173 CrPC when the sanction had been withdrawn by the State of Nagaland and the RC had been quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi? The Ld. Judge rejected these grounds for appeal and held that these issues were no more res integra and had already been dealt by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Apex Court. The Ld. Judge held that permission/consent under Section 6 DSPE Act once granted cannot be revoked with retrospective effect. The Ld. Judge further upheld that, "in law an FIR has only two fates that is to say it will either culminate into a report under Section 173 CrPC or it may be quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. There is no third fate of an FIR at investigation stage." Lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC While declaring that there was no requirement of sanction under section 197 CrPC since 'act of acquiring firearms for self protection cannot be said to be part of his official duty'. However, the Judge declared that, "it must be borne in mind that Section 197 CrPC bar jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance and since it relates to competence of the court therefore it can be raised at any stage even if it was inadvertently not raised before the Trial Court." Whether the appellant had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the authority to issue a fourth arm license and whether the appellant had manipulated/ added in the said license? The LD. Judge held that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant under section 420 and 467 IPC since the CBI had failed to prove the same. Thus, the said finding had attained finality since the acquittal had not been appealed against by CBI. Once it has been proved on record that appellant had applied for fourth license then it is for the appellant to prove that he had applied for two firearms? The Judge, rejecting the contention held, that it is not sustainable as it is always the prosecution who has the onus to prove its allegation beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person. The Judge reiterated that it is settled law that case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and any weakness or failure to prove his defense by the accused, would not ipso facto prove the case of the prosecution. Whether Arms rules do not permit more than one weapon under one license? On the failure of the prosecution to prove by way of examination of witnesses whether the fourth license was issued for one arm only or not, the Ld. Judge upheld the arguments of the Counsels for the Appellant. The Ld. Judge iterated that in the license itself was a heading requiring disclosing of description of each weapon with details. The Judge opined that if there had been a rule that only one firearm would be issued under one license then there was no need to have such disclosure of each weapons. Whether the Ld. Trial Court committed error in holding the appellant guilty of offense under Section 417 IPC r/w Section 415 IPC and offense under Section 471 IPC r/w Section 467 IPC? The Judge held that once prosecution failed to prove that the fourth license was in respect of only one firearm, appellant cannot be accused of having induced the arms dealer to sell him two weapons under the license as said license was in fact in respect of two weapons as has been held herein before and therefore appellant cannot be held guilty for having knowingly used forged/false license and induced the seller to sell him two weapons. Whether the prosecution against the appellant was legally instituted in respect of the offense under Section 25 of Arms Act with valid sanction as required under Section 39 of the Arms Act? The Judge...

"No Prosecution Qua The Offence Of Unlawful Possession Of Arms Without Previous Sanction From DM : Delhi CBI Court Acquits Former Chief Secretary Of Nagaland [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags