LexGUNWANTLAL versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
508
Y.
THE SfATE OF MADHYA l'Rl\DF.511
May 3,. 1972
{P, ]AGANMQHAN REDDY, K. K. MATHEW AND G. K. MITTER, ]J.}
The Arms Act 54 of 1959, S. 25(a)-Possession of fire arm wheth.111
includes constvuctive pos~essiori--Code of Criminal Procedure s. 39-
SIJllClion for wosecutio7>-Validity of.
M who was accu ed of an offe11ce undel: s. 302 of the Indian ~nal
Code gave inf911),latlon t\> the PQ!ice on S:plember 16 1966 · dur.na
the coorse of investigation of that offence that the appeUant had given
!iim. a revolver whien he had kept with one C at villa11e Karoonda in
tbe State of Rajastban. On that information tm revolver waa l!lf'@<i
frllD! C the next day
oomely, Septembec 17,
1966. The po.ice at
Neemucli in Madhya ~
11Pplied for sanction under s. 39 of ~
J\ct to prosecute the •weilant for the offence und<ir s. 25 (a) of the
Pu:<.
I ue s..nction stated that the appell\Ull had "allegedly been found
in !'OSSession of and bavieg under his control one revo.ver without a
va!"IGI licence at 1-leemuch
PoHce
Statioo,
Neemuclt on
17-9-1966."
Toe Magi trate :µ Neemuch f~
a charge agaiast the appellant under
s. 25(a) of the Indian Arms Act 1959 .on the basis that he was found
ia pos$0ssion of the revolver .on or befo1•' 17-9-1966. Tbe appellant
llled a revision petition before the sessions
judge . which was rejected
The High Coulrt rejecr..d a further revision petition. In appeal
by
special leave before thls Court the que tioo that fell for col)'liderat'o:>
~· : ( 1 ) whether on the facts alleged the a~lant c.ould be said I.)
be in !>Q.'Sessioo of the revolver for b.eing changed with an otfenC'e u. der
s. 2,5(a) of the Act: and (ii) whetb,er the charge went tt.>yond the sa11ction.
field : (i) Tue possession of a. fue aI'lll un<ler the Anns Act 11)!lSt
have, firstly, the element of consciousness or knowled•e of that posses-
sion in the person charged with such offence and secondly, whore he has
not the actual physical possession, he has none-the less a power or con-
trol over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues
des i e
ph~ical pos essio<t being in someone else. If this were not so, lhe)l
;in owner of a house who leaves an unlio.,"1lced gun in that house
but
is not present when it was recovered by the police can plead
thal he
was not in poosession of it even though he had himself consciously
kept it tbore when he went out.
Simila•ly. if he goes out of the ho-.ise
during the day and in the meantime someone conreals a pistol in
his
house .nd during his abs.nee the ooliC'e arrives and discovers the pi·tol
he cannot be charged with the offimce unless it c'n be shown tltat he
had knowledge of the weapon being nlaced in his house.
And
vet
again if a gun or firearm is giV"n to hi• s~rvant in the ho-1se · o cfoan
it, though the physic•!
oossession i• wi•h him nevertheless
~sioli
of it will be that of the owner. [511 G-512 BJ
In anv disputed ~uestion of possession,
specific facts admitted
or
proved will alone esl'llblish the existence of the de facto rehti"ll of <0"1-
trol or the dominion of the person over it necessaty to determine whet'-er
that person was or was not in possession· of the th'ng in question. [512 D]
On the above view the charge that the appellant was in J>O'lsess;on
of the revolver on 17-9-1966 did not suffer from any defect particularly
A
•
c
D
F
G
H
"
,j
OUNWANTLAL v. STATE (laganmahan Reddy, /.)
&&9
A
when he was definitely informed in that .dJarge that )lo had control over
!be revolver.
However in vie\\ of the forms· of the charge given in the
ScbedU!e to tic Code of Criminal Procedure the charge should be amend•
ed to read ~on or about' 11-9-1-966 inatead of 'on or bef<>re'. [511 B--G)
B
D
IE
G
H
(ii) Under the Arius Act all that is required for sanction illlder s. 39
· i5 that the penon to be prosecure.t WM found to be in possession of tho
:Qrearm, the data ck dates !lll which he WM SO round in possession and
the possmion of the firearm was without a valid lioo~. As all the
e!cmonts W<'t"e contaioed in the sanction in the preseot ca..e it was not an
illega1 sanction oor could it be said that tJie .charge travelled beyond the
sanction. [513 B-:-FJ
Gokak Chand v. The King, 75 Indian Cases 30, disllnguisbod.
Malian Mohan v .. State of Uttr.r Pradesh, A.i.R. 1954 S.C. ~37,
Nferred to.
[The conte!ltiol! that the Court in Madhya Pradellil had no juris4ic-
lion since the revolver was recowred in llajastbati was not Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.