STATE OF M.P. versus AYUB KHAN

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 29-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 427 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
AYUB KHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1324 of 2012) 
AUGUST 29 , 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
ARMS ACT, 1959: 
A 
B 
s. 25(1 )(a) - Unauthorised possession of arms - c 
Punishment - Held: Proliferation of arms and ammunition, 
whether licensed or not, in the country disrupts the social 
order and development, vitiates law and order situation, 
directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts which needs 
to be curbed - Taking into consideration all these aspects, 
including the national interest and safety of the citizens, the 
Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a minimum 
mandatory sentence (imprisonment for a term 'not less than 
three years' - Once the accused was found guilty of the 
offence, he has necessarily to undergo the minimum 
E 
mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute - Law 
enforcing agencies and courts should not treat such crimes 
lightly - High Court and the courts below have committed a 
serious error in not awarding the minimum mandatory 
sentence prescribed - Orders of sentence passed by High 
Court as well as the courts below are set aside - Respondent-
accused has to undergo a minimum period of three years 
sentence as prescribed uls 25(1)(a) and a/so with a fine of 
Rs.50001-. 
D 
F 
The instant appeal was filed by the State against the 
G 
judgment and order of the High Court by which it upheld 
the conviction of the respondent u/s 25(1 )(a) of the Arms 
Act, 1959 for being in possession of a country made gun 
with 2 round bullets and 50 gms explosive, without 
427 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A licence, but reduced the sentence of one year's RI and a 
fine of Rs.100/- imposed by the trial court and upheld by 
the appellate court, to the period already undergone ( i.e. 
7 days) with a fine of Rs.5000/-. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Proliferation of arms and ammunition, 
whether licensed or not, in the country disrupts the social 
order and development, vitiates law and order situation, 
directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts which 
C needs to be curbed. 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. A 
person who is found to be in possession bf country 
D made barrel gun with two round bullets and 50 grams 
explosive without licence, must in the absence of proof 
to the contrary be presumed l:o be carrying i\it with the 
intention of using it when an opportunity arises which 
would be detrimental to the people at larga. Once the 
E accused was found guilty of the offence u/s.. 25(1 )(a) of 
the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo th'e minimum 
mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute. 
Keeping in view the safety of the citizens, the national 
security, and integrity and unity of the country, the law 
F enforcing agencies and the courts should not treat such 
crimes lightly. [para 2 and 10] [429-E-F; 433-A-D] 
1.2 The High Court and the courts below have 
committed a serious error in not awarding the minimum 
mandatory sentence prescribed under the Statute. Error 
G is apparent on the face of the High Court's order. The 
High Court has confined the sentence to the period the 
accused was in custody stating that he had already 
served substantive period of jail sentence. The accused 
was in custody only for seven days i.e. from 14.9.05 to 
H 20.9.05. Thus, the High Court could not have reached a 
STATE OF M.P. v. AYUB KHAN 
429 
finding that the accused had served the substantive 
A 
period of jail sentence. The orders of sentence passed 
by the High Court as well as the courts below are set 
aside and it is ordered that the respondent-aecused has 
to undergo a minimum period of three years sentence as 
prescribed u/s 25(1 )(a) of the Arms Act and also with a 
B 
fine of Rs.5000/-. [para 8-9 and 12] (431-G-H; 432-A-B; 433-
F-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1324 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.01.2009 of the High 
Court of Madya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Revision 
No. 472 of 2008. 
Sunny Chaudhary, C.D. Singh for the Appellant. 
Yogesh Tiwari, Vikrant Singh Bais for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Proliferation of arms and am_munition, whether licensed 
or not, in the country disrupts the 

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