Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on December 3, 2024 quashed criminal proceedings under the Arms Act, allowing a plea by a man against the Delhi High Court's judgment which failed to note fundamental flaws in the prosecution case related to possession of button actuated knife.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta noted the Delhi High Court rejected the petition filed by appellant Irfan Khan under Section 482 of the CrPC cursorily.

The court pointed out that the possession of the buttondar knife was not of prohibited category under the 1980 notification.

The court held that the proceedings sought to be undertaken against the appellant in pursuance of the impugned charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, were tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and deserved to be quashed.

The court noted the allegation against the appellant was of simply carrying a buttondar knife, which is not an offence as per the DAD notification and that the possession of the same was not for ‘manufacture, sale or possession for sale or for test'.

Regarding the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, the bench noted there was no averment that the appellant was possessing the knife for the purpose of ‘manufacture, sale or possession for sale or for test.’

The appellant sought quashment of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR lodged on July 9, 2022 at Police Station, Govind Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was alleged in the FIR that the appellant was found in the Pravasi Park acting suspiciously. Upon being searched, a buttondar (button actuated) knife having dimensions, 31.5 cms in length (blade length of 14.5 cms and handle of 17 cms) and width of 3 cms, was recovered from his possession.

A charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant in connection with the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

The court noted as per Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A) of the Arms Rules, 20164, possession of a knife having blade length of more than 9 inches (22.86 cms) and width of more than 2 inches (5.08 cms) had been brought within the purview of an offence under the Arms Act and the Arms Rules.

"Admittedly, dimensions of the knife recovered from the appellant were much lesser than the one provided in the statute and the rules framed thereunder. However, the Government of NCT of Delhi has issued a DAD notification dated 29th October, 1980 by which certain categories of knives/sharp weapons, having dimensions lesser than those provided in the Arms Act and Arms Rules when meant for 'manufacture, sale or possess for sale or test', were brought within the purview of the Arms Act," the bench pointed out.

Examining the issue whether the knife recovered from the appellant violated the DAD Notification, the bench pointed out, that a bare perusal of the conclusions as set out in the charge-sheet indicated that there was no allegation whatsoever that the buttondar knife recovered from the appellant was in violation of any of the stipulations contained in the DAD Notification of October 29, 1980.

The provision mandated that ‘no person in the Union Territory of Delhi shall “manufacture, sale or possess for sale or test” spring actuated knives, gararidar knives, buttondar knives and other knives which open or close with any other mechanical device with a sharp edge blade of 7.62 cms, or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth in the Union Territory of Delhi, the court noted.

The court also recorded the notification whereby, a buttondar knife having blade dimensions of 7.62 cms or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth has been brought under the mischief of the Arms Act, would be applicable only when the recovered knife is meant for the specified reasons i.e., “manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test” as indicated in the DAD notification.

"Manifestly, on going through the report under Section 173 CrPC, there is not even a whisper that the appellant’s possession of the said buttondar knife was for any of the prohibited categories as indicated in the DAD Notification. Hence, the totality of the evidence collected by the investigation officer is not sufficient to draw even a remote inference that by simply being found in possession of the buttondar knife, the appellant acted in violation of the DAD Notification," the bench said.

The court stated that, though the respondent state's question in its counter affidavit as to whether the possession of the knife was for sale or testing should be examined at the trial stage, it was indisputable that, before subjecting the accused to trial for mere possession of the knife, the prosecution had to first present basic allegations in the charge-sheet constituting the ingredients of the offence.

"Needless to say, having perused the entirety of evidence collected during investigation, the prosecution cannot be allowed to improve its case as set out in the charge-sheet," the bench said.

The court accordingly set aside the Delhi High Court's order of April 18, 2023, and quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant following the filing of the charge sheet and the FIR.

Case Title: Irfan Khan Vs State (NCT of Delhi)