Impact of possession of weapon under Arms Act

Facts:

The appellant, Irfan Khan, was charged under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on FIR No. 477 of 2022, alleging illegal possession of a buttondar knife. The FIR was registered on July 9, 2022, at the Govind Puri Police Station. During investigation, a knife with a blade of 14.5 cm and width of 3 cm was recovered from the appellant. The appellant challenged the proceedings on the grounds that the knife did not fall within the purview of prohibited arms under the Arms Act or the Arms Rules, 2016. The High Court of Delhi rejected the appellant’s petition to quash the FIR, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Appellant:

1. The knife recovered was not within the statutory dimensions to constitute an offense under the Arms Act.
2. The appellant did not possess the knife for manufacture, sale, or test, as required under the DAD Notification of 1980.
3. The investigation report did not present allegations sufficient to draw an inference of illegal possession under the Arms Act or related notifications.
4. The appellant’s mere possession of the knife without requisite intention did not amount to a violation.

Contentions of the Respondent:

1. The possession of the buttondar knife contravened the DAD Notification dated October 29, 1980.
2. The determination of whether the knife was possessed for manufacture, sale, or test should be examined during the trial.
3. The High Court correctly dismissed the appellant’s petition, as the case merited further examination at the trial stage.

Issues:

1. Whether the buttondar knife recovered from the appellant fell within the scope of prohibited arms under the Arms Act and the DAD Notification of 1980.
2. Whether the prosecution failed to establish that the knife was possessed for manufacture, sale, or test.
3. Whether the proceedings against the appellant constituted an abuse of the process of law.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:

1. The dimensions of the knife exceeded those stipulated under the DAD Notification. However, the notification specifically applies to knives possessed for manufacture, sale, or test.
2. The charge sheet lacked allegations or evidence suggesting that the appellant’s possession fell within these categories.
3. The High Court failed to address fundamental flaws in the prosecution’s case and dismissed the quashing petition without proper examination.
4. Mere possession of the knife, without evidence of intent or purpose as required under the DAD Notification, could not sustain charges under the Arms Act.

Principle of the Case:

Possession of a weapon, such as a buttondar knife, does not constitute an offense under the Arms Act or related notifications unless there is specific intent or purpose, such as for manufacture, sale, or test, as prescribed by the statute or notification.

Final Order:

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and all proceedings against the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s order. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Impact on Public Law and Order:

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings must be based on clear statutory violations and sufficient evidence. It prevents misuse of legal provisions and ensures individuals are not unduly prosecuted for mere possession without requisite intent or purpose. This decision protects citizens from arbitrary actions by law enforcement and upholds procedural fairness.

Case Citation:

Supreme Court of India, Irfan Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12510 of 2023), Decided on December 3, 2024.