IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2010/ Crl.MC.No. 2589 of 2006 ( ) --------------------------- CP.90/2005 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI PETITIONER/ACCUSED:: ---------------------- E.K. SAIDALAVI, S/O. ABDULLA, EDAKKANADAN HOUSE, CHULLIPARAMBA, VENGARA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECRTOR OF POLICE PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 ORDER Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash entire committal proceedings initiated against petitioner. 2. A charge-sheet was laid against petitioner along with two others (petitioner is accused no.1) stating that on 2.1.2004 at about 1 p.m. petitioner was found driving a qualis in a negligent manner so as to endanger human life and car was stopped by police party and on search of car, accused were found in possession of a loaded revolver, the second accused was found in possession of a dagger and on suspicion that they are carrying these for the purpose of using the same unlawfully, they were arrested. 3. On investigation it was found that petitioner committed offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code ('the Code' for short) and Section 20 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act ('the Act' for short). Similarly, allegations were made against other accused as well. Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2006 2 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has obtained a license for the revolver which is seized in this case and prosecution records themselves will reveal that petitioner is a licensee. Annexure-C is a certificate issued by Additional District Magistrate to the Circle Inspector of Police stating this fact. Even though police is empowered to arrest a person, even in a case in which a person is having a license to carry a revolver, if there is just ground for suspicion that the same are or is being carried by accused with intend to use, in any unlawful purpose, such person cannot be proceeded against under Section 27 of the Act, Section 27 of the Act will lie only if a person uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 or 7 of the Act. The “use” of the Act arms or ammunition is relevant to attract Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the committal proceedings initiated against petitioner may be quashed, it is argued. 5. On a reading of Section 20 and 27 of the Act, I find that there is merit in the contentions raised by petitioner. Section 20 does not define the offence, but as far as Section 27 of the Act is concerned to make a person liable under Section 27 of the Act prosecution has to prove that he used the contraband weapon. Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2006 3 It is only if accused “uses” any arms or ammunition, offence under Section 27 of the Act will be attracted. 6. One of the main ingredients of the offence under Section 27 of the Act is the “use” of any arms or ammunition. But the prosecution itself has no case that petitioner used the revolver and hence Section 27 of the Act will not be attracted. The learned counsel for petitioner also brought to my notice that co- accused were discharged of offence under Section 27 of the Act. In the above circumstances, after hearing both sides, I find that petitioner cannot be proceeded against for offence under Section 27 of the Act. 7. The committal proceedings are initiated, since offence under Section 27 of the Act is allegedly involved against petitioner. Since no offence under Section 27 of the Act is attracted in this case, the committal proceedings have to be quashed. However, I find that there is an allegation that petitioner has committed an offence under Section 279 of the Code also and the allegations made in the charge-sheet will prima facie disclose such offence. Hence, charge laid against petitioner for offence under Section 279 of IPC cannot be set Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2006 4 aside. 8. In the result, the following order is passed. 1. The committal proceedings initiated against petitioner is, hereby, quashed. 2. However, it is made clear that there is no bar in the court proceeding against petitioner for offence under Section 279 of IPC. 3. Petitioner shall not be proceeded against for offence under Section 20 read with 27 of the Act referred to in the charge-sheet Annexure-B. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE cms