Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Under Arms Act for Lack of Evidence. Possession of a Buttondar Knife Without Intent for Sale or Test Does Not Constitute an Offense Under the Arms Act.

Introduction

Para 1-2:

Criminal appeal under the Supreme Court arising from FIR No. 477/2022. Appellant seeks quashing of FIR under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act for possession of a buttondar knife. Facts and Allegations

Para 3:

FIR alleged that the appellant was found with a buttondar knife in a public park. Knife dimensions: blade length 14.5 cm, width 3 cm, handle length 17 cm.

Para 4-5:

Knife dimensions did not fall within the prohibited category under the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016. Prohibition under the DAD Notification (29th October 1980) applied only to possession for “manufacture, sale, or test.” Legal Submissions and Issues

Para 6-7:

No evidence in the charge-sheet indicated the knife was intended for sale or test as per the DAD Notification. Notification requires specific conditions (manufacture, sale, or test) to constitute an offense. Evidence and Investigative Findings

Para 8-10:

Charge-sheet lacked allegations or evidence linking the possession to prohibited activities under the Arms Act or DAD Notification. Investigating officer failed to demonstrate intent or purpose beyond mere possession. Judgment Analysis

Para 11-13:

High Court’s rejection of the quashing petition failed to address the lack of ingredients for an offense. Supreme Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to proceed with a trial.

Para 14-15:

The charge-sheet did not establish any offense under the Arms Act. FIR, charge-sheet, and proceedings quashed as they constituted an abuse of process. Key Legal Provisions Discussed:

Arms Act, 1959

Sections 25, 54, and 59: Deal with unlawful possession and use of arms.

Arms Rules, 2016

Rule 3 and Schedule I, Category V: Define prohibited dimensions for sharp-edged weapons.

DAD Notification (29th October 1980)

Prohibits possession of buttondar knives exceeding specified dimensions only when intended for “manufacture, sale, or test.”

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 482: Inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process. Ratio Decidendi: Mere possession of a knife with specified dimensions is not an offense unless intended for manufacture, sale, or test, as per the Arms Act and DAD Notification. Prosecution must present specific allegations to proceed to trial. Subjects: Criminal Law: Possession of a prohibited weapon under the Arms Act. Arms Act 1959 Quashing FIR Arms Rules 2016 DAD Notification Abuse of Process Supreme Court Judgment

Issue of Consideration: IRFAN KHAN VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)