Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed Vs. State of M.P.

Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed vs State of M.P.

Disposition Application allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 30, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/506972

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/506972
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.P. Singh, J.
Decided On: Jan 30, 1995
Case Number: Cr.R. No. 56 of 1995
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 4 and 25(1); Arms Rules, 1962 - Rule 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed

Advocate Surendra Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate N.S. Ruprah, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 4 and 25(1); Arms Rules, 1962 - Rule 3
Reported In: 1997(2)MPLJ117

Excerpt

- .....by the sessions judge, panna in criminal appeal no. 64/94.5. shri surendra singh learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence, that the knife recovered and seized from the applicant was longer than 9' in length and 2' in width in order to bring the offence within the purview of the definition of the arms, as provided under the arms act.6. shri n. s. ruprah, dy. government advocate has fairly conceded that there is lack of legal evidence in this case.7. it is evident, from category 5 of schedule 1 and rule 3 of the arms rules, 1962 that any sharp edged and deadly weapon, namely sword, dagger, a knife and other weapon, the blade of these weapons should be longer than 9' or wider than 2' in order to bring them within the purview of the definition of the arms act.8. in the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to bring any notification of the central government on the record, issued under section 4 of the arms act, regulating the acquisition, possession and carrying of arm in the district of panna. the prosecution has also not led any cogent evidence that the knife seized from the possession of the applicant was longer than 9' and 2' in width, in order to bring the same within the purview of the definition of the arms as provided under the arms act.9. the learned lower court has overlooked this aspect of the case, and the evidence in this regard. there is manifest illegality in the conviction and sentence of the applicant.10. for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the judgment under appeal is set aside, and this application succeeds, and is hereby allowed.c. c. be given on payment of usual charges.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.P. Singh, J.

1. This revision is being disposed of at the admission stage upon the consent of the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the Order dated 16-1-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in criminal appeal No. 60/94, whereby he dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant as passed by the trial Court.

3. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, for possessing a Rampuri knife, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo R.I. for further two months.

4. The conviction and sentence of the applicant was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in criminal appeal No. 64/94.

5. Shri Surendra Singh learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence, that the knife recovered and seized from the applicant was longer than 9' in length and 2' in width in order to bring the offence within the purview of the definition of the Arms, as provided under the Arms Act.

6. Shri N. S. Ruprah, Dy. Government Advocate has fairly conceded that there is lack of legal evidence in this case.

7. It is evident, from category 5 of Schedule 1 and Rule 3 of the Arms Rules, 1962 that any sharp edged and deadly weapon, namely Sword, Dagger, a knife and other weapon, the blade of these weapons should be longer than 9' or wider than 2' in order to bring them within the purview of the definition of the Arms Act.

8. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to bring any notification of the Central Government on the record, issued Under Section 4 of the Arms Act, regulating the acquisition, possession and carrying of Arm in the district of Panna. The prosecution has also not led any cogent evidence that the knife seized from the possession of the applicant was longer than 9' and 2' in width, in order to bring the same within the purview of the definition of the Arms as provided under the Arms Act.

9. The learned lower Court has overlooked this aspect of the case, and the evidence in this regard. There is manifest illegality in the conviction and sentence of the applicant.

10. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the judgment under appeal is set aside, and this application succeeds, and is hereby allowed.

C. C. be given on payment of usual charges.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1995 Same Parties Gudda @ Sameer Ahmed vs State of M.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.P. Singh, J. Acts & Sections Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 4 and 25(1); Arms Rules, 1962 - Rule 3

Criminal