BRANCH C.1.0., TIRUNELVELI RANGE, TAMILNADU versus MARIYAANTONVIJAY

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 01-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 7 S.C.R. 581 
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 'Q' 
A 
BRANCH C.1.0., TIRUNELVELI RANGE, TAMILNADU 
v. 
MARIYAANTONVIJAY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2015) 
JULY01, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.3971482- Quashing 
B 
c 
of proceedings/Revision - Vessel stationed at 3. 8 nautical 
miles from baseline carrying huge quantity of arms and 
ammunition without valid authorisation and documents -
Case registered against crew members under Arms Act, 1959 D 
and other statutes - Investigation revealed that owner of the 
vessel had credited 40,476 US$ from USA to India in the 
account of A-43 and the amount was handed over to A-38 for 
purchasing the bulk quantity of diesel which was transported 
to vessel - Cognizance of offence - Quashing/revision of E 
proceedings sought by accused persons - High Court held 
that no prima facie case was made out under the Arms Act 
and quashed the proceedings relating to offences 
punishable under the Arms Act - Thereby, all the accused 
except A-3 and A-38 were acquitted of the offences - On F 
State's appeal, Held: Prosecuting agency had collected 
material during investigation to enable the Court to frame 
appropriate charges for commission of the offences 
punishable under the Arms Act and such material was G 
capable of being proved in evidence in accordance with law 
- The very fact that huge quantity of arms and ammunition 
were recovered from the possession and control of the crew 
members from the vessel and that the crew members were 
unable to satisfy their legal possession over such arms! H 
581 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A ammunition with them by producing any evidence such as 
licenses, certificates etc. it was sufficient to attract the 
provisions of Arms Act - High Court while deciding the 
matters virtually acted as an appellate Court as if hearing 
appeals arising out of the final order and proceeded to 
B examine each and every issue mentioned in the charge 
sheet by appreciating the material on record and applying 
the relevant provisions of various Acts, Rules and 
international treaties governing the controversy - This 
approach of High Court while hearing the case u/s.4821397 
C was wholly unwarranted and cannot be upheld. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court while deciding the 
o matters virtually acted as an appellate Court as if he was 
hearing appeals arising out of the final order and 
proceeded to examine each and every issue mentioned 
in the charge sheet by appreciating the material on 
record and applying the relevant provisions of various 
E Acts, Rules and international treaties governing the 
controversy. This approach of the High Court while 
hearing the case under section 482 of the Code, was 
wholly unwarranted, illegal and cannot be upheld. 
[Paras 91to93] [618-D, F-H; 619-A] 
F 
2. Six reasons given by the High Court were not 
the reasons which could be made basis to invoke the 
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. For quashing the 
charge-sheet, those six factual reasons had nothing to 
G do with the jurisdiction of the court while entertaining 
the charge sheet. Apart from the fact as to whether such 
reasons were relevant or not, the fact remained that none 
of them were of any avail unless each reason was 
proved by the evidence adduced by both parties during 
H trial. [Para 94) [619-B-C] 
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE, 'Q' BRANCH C.l.D., T. N. v. 
583 
MARIYA ANTON VIJAY 
3. It cannot be disputed that prosecuting agency A 
had collected material during investigation to erii:itlle the 
Court to frame appropriate charges for commission of 
the offences punishable under the Arms Act and such 
material was capable of being proved in evidence in 
accordance with law to enable the Trial Court to reach B 
any conclusion as to whether a case of conviction or 
acquittal is made out or not. The very fact that huge 
quantity of arms and ammunition were recovered from 
the possession and control of the crew members from 
the vessel and further during investigation, the crew C 
members were unable to satisfy their legal possession 
over such arms/ammunition with them by not being able 
to produce any evidence such as licenses, certificates 
etc. it was sufficient to attract the provisions of Arms Act 0 
for initiating prosecution of the accused for commission 
of the offences punishable under the Arms Act, namely, 
for possessing unlicensed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.