SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS WEST BENGAL versus ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 23-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL Al'FAIRS 
WEST BENGAL 
v. 
ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA & ORS. 
August 23, 1979 
323 
'[R. S. SARKARIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
.Arms Act 1959 (4 of 1959)-S. 29(b)-Scope of-Giving of fire-arms 
ifor limited purpose of repairs-Whether amounts to delivery of 'possession'-
Great caution and discenunent necessary in the application of the ratio of ca.~es 
<decided under the Arms Act of 1878 to those under the present Act. 
Words & Phrases-"Possession" meaning of-S. 29(b) Arms Act, 1959. 
B 
c 
The prosecution alleged that the police officers of the appellant state while 
~nvestigating a case discovered a workshop run by a mechanic who was then 
.actually working on a revolver. Several other guns, revolvers and rifles were 
found in the workshop and all these fire-arms were seized. 
The 
p1echanic 
claimed to have received one of the guns so seized from a gun-licensee and the 
D 
rest fron1 respondents 1 to 4 for repairs. The mechanic had no valid licence 
t1nder the Arms Act to keep or repair these fire-arms but respondent No. 4 
however possessed licences under the Act to run the business of repairing and 
.dealing in fire-arms. 
The police charge-sheeted the mechanic, the gun licensee 
and respondents 1 to 4, for having committed offences under Sections 25(l)(a) 
and 27 of the Act. 
The Magistrate held that there were materials to make out a prima facie 
case under s. 25(1)(c) of the Act against the gun-licensee and under s. 29(b) 
of the Act against the mechanic and charged them accordingly. 
As regards 
Respondents 1 to 4 taking the view that giving of the arms to the mechanic by 
1he respondents for the limited purpose of repairs, did not amount to delivery 
of 'possession' of those arms within the meaning of s. 29(b) of the Act, he dis-
.charged the said respondents. 
' 
The appellant's criminal revision against the said order, was dismissed, the 
High Court holOing that Respondents 1 to 4 could not be said to have· delivered 
the fire-arms into the 'possession' of the mechanic within the meaning of s. 29(b) 
of the Act, because the respondents possessed valid licences for repairs as \vell 
as for sale of fire-arms and had given only 'temporary• custody of those arms 
tb the mechanic for the limited purpose of carrying Out the repair job, while 
1he effective control over those arms all the time remained with the respoildents. 
I 
In appeal to thjs Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant-State 
that. the question whether a person is in possession of a fire-arm or had trans-
ferred and delivered it to another, is largely one of f9.ct; that in the instant case, 
the mechanic was not a servant or employee of the respondents but \\tis in~ 
.dependently running his own business of repairing fire-arms; that the fire-arins 
\\'ere handed over by the respondents to the mechanic to be repaired at the 
latter's residence-cum-workshop which was not the respondent's licensed place 
.E 
G 
H' 
• 
'A 
B 
c 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 1 S.C.R. 
of business; ,that the mechanic had no licence for repairing or keeping fire-arm.s-
and the respondents were either aware of this fact or did not ascertain it before 
delivering the fire-arms to him, that 'possession' within the purview of s. 29(b) 
means immediate possession and consequently, delivery of even temporary pos.-
session and control to an unauthorised person falls within the mischief of the 
siection; that in the circumstances of the instant case there was a clear pritna 
facie case not only under s. 29(b) but also under s. 30 read withs. 5 of the 
Act, against the Respondents and consequently the Magistrate was not justified. 
in discharging them. 
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that the mechanic was only 
in temporary custody of the fire-arms for the limited purpose of repairing them, 
.as an agent of the owners, who being licencees in Form IX entitled to repair 
and keep these fire arms, througho\lt remained in their lawful possession and 
control. The delivery of possession contemplated by s. 29(b) is something. 
more t_lian entrusting the arms to an 'agent' for the limited purpose of repairs. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. "PosSession" is a polymorphous term which may have different 
, meanings in different contexts. It is impossible to work out a completely logical 
D 
and precise definition of "possession" uniforinly applicable to all situations in. 
the contexts of all statutes. "Possession

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