Supreme Court Judgment on Arms Act, 1959

Recently, the Supreme gave a wonderful judgment on Arms Act, 1959. I will briefly state the facts:

The accused was found to be in possession of country made barrel gun with two round bullets and 50 grams of explosives, without any licence. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and was tried before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The Magistrate court passed the following order:

“There is no previous crime in the name of the accused and certainly the accused is the first time offender but from the possession of the accused a rifle was found illegally in his possession, therefore, it is not proper to adopt a lenient approach towards the accused. Only in view of the time taken by the trial and the time already spent by the accused in custody, the accused is not punished with the maximum punishment and, therefore, the accused Ayub Khan is sentenced to one year of R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable u/w 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.”

The accused filed a Criminal Appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The accused then filed Criminal Revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court but so far as the sentence is concerned, the High Court passed the following order:

“so far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the fact that the petitioner has already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of two months, in default the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the Learned Court below.”

Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Madhya Pradesh approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reprimanded the High Court and the courts below and said that they have committed a serious error in not awarding the minimum mandatory sentence prescribed under the Statute. Chapter V of the Arms Act deals with the offences and penalties. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for which minimum mandatory sentence was not less than three years.

The Court further said that:

"We are sorry to note that the High Court has not taken pains to examine what was the period he had served by way of substantive sentence. The accused was in custody only for seven days i.e. from 14.9.05 to 20.9.05. Legislature, in its wisdom, has fixed a mandatory minimum sentence for certain offences keeping, possessing arms and ammunition is a serious offence which shall not be less than three years. Legislature, in its wisdom, felt that there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for such offences having felt the increased need to provide for more stringent punishment to curb unauthorised access to arms and ammunition, especially in a situation where we are facing with menace of terrorism and other anti national activities. A person who is found to be in possession of country made barrel gun with two round bullets and 50 grams explosive without licence, must in the absence of proof to the contrary be presumed to be carrying it with the intention of using it when an opportunity arise which would be detrimental to the people at large. Possibly, taking into consideration all those aspects, including the national interest and safety of the fellow citizens, the Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a minimum mandatory sentence. Once the accused was found guilty for the offence committed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo the minimum mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute."

Finally, the Supreme Court ordered that the accused has to undergo a minimum period of three years sentence as prescribed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and also with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, another three months simple imprisonment.

It is a welcome judgment and the Supreme Court has set the right precedent in the light of the prevailing circumstances. From a sympathetic angle, it would seem that the man just had a gun and few grams of explosives. It might have been the case that he wanted to keep that gun for his own protection or some other reason like that and that is why the Magistrate Court and Additional Sessions Judge Court awarded him a sentence of just one year.

But, if we look at the wider picture, we will see that arms and ammunition always disturb the peace and order of a society and a day comes when it unswervingly contributes towards disastrous violent or terrorist deeds.

It is certainly not correct to take such crimes in a casual manner without understanding the potential of havoc they possess. This case, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, clearly shows the attitude of authorities in this regard.

It is painful to know that, three levels of Courts (Magistrate Court, Additional Sessions Judge Court and the High Court) failed to give a correct decision which involved a simple application of a statutory provision. Let us hope that our authorities and courts become more vigil in this regard.