Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2024 INSC 924
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12510 of 2023)
IRFAN KHAN .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant seeks quashment of the proceedings of the
th
criminal case arising from FIR No. 477 of 2022 dated 9 July, 2022
lodged against him at Police Station, Govind Puri for the offences
1
punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 .
It was inter alia alleged in the FIR that the appellant was found in
the Pravasi Park acting suspiciously. Upon being searched, a
buttondar 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2024.12.03
18:24:03 IST
Reason:
recovered from his possession.
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Arms Act’.
1
3. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against
the appellant in connection with the aforesaid FIR for the offences
punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. The
2
appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a petition
3
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
quashing of the FIR, the consequential charge-sheet, and all the
proceedings sought to be taken thereunder. The said petition
th
stands rejected vide order dated 18 April, 2023 which is assailed
in this appeal by special leave.
4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
K.M. Natraj, learned ASG, appearing for the State (NCT of Delhi)
and have gone through the material placed on record.
5. As per Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A) of
4
the Arms Rules, 2016 , 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) has been brought within the purview of an offence
under the Arms Act and the Arms Rules. The said provision read
as under: -
2
Criminal MC No. 1736 of 2023.
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Arms Rules’.
2
“V. Arms other than firearms: Sharp-edged and deadly
weapons, namely: Swords (including sword-sticks), daggers,
bayonets, spears (including; lances and javelins), battle-axes,
knives (including Kirpans and Khukries) and other such
weapons with blades longer than 9” or wider than 2” other
than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or
industrial purposes, steel batton, “Zipo” and other such
weapons called 'life preservers', machinery for making arms,
other than category II, and any other arms which the Central
Government may notify under Section 4 of the Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. 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
th 5
of Delhi has issued a DAD notification dated 29 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 DAD
notification reads as below: -
“ Case File (25/54/59 Arms Act) (Knife)
Notification regarding length and breadth of Knife
DAD Notification
(To be Published in Part IV of Deli Gazette)
(Extra Ordinary)
Delhi Administration, Delhi
Notification
th
Dated the 29 October, 1980
No. F/13/451/79-Home (G) - Whereas the administration is of
the opinion that having regarding to the circumstances
prevailing in the Union Territory of Delhi is necessary
Appointed Date expedient in the public interest, "to regulate the
5
Hereinafter, being referred as ‘DAD Notification’.
3
manufacture sale or possession for sale or test the spring
actuated knives, gararidar knives, bottondar 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.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers under rule 19 of the
Arms Rules, 1962 read with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home
st
Affairs Notification No. 2/2/69-UTL(ii) dt. 21 June, 1969, the
Administrator Delhi is pleased to direct that "no person in the
Union Territory of Delhi shall manufacture, sale or possess
for sale or test spring actuated knives, gararidar knives,
bottondar 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" unless he hold a
licence issued in accordance with provisions of the Arms
Act, 1959 (No. 64 of 1959) and Arms Rule, 1962 framed
thereunder with effect from the publication of this
Notification in Delhi Gazette.
Sd/-
(Nathu Ram)
Deputy Secretary, Home (G)
Delhi, Administration, Delhi
No. F-13/451/179 (Home General) dt. 29.10.1980
This is necessary to be included in the case file.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. For the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether the knife
recovered from the appellant violated the DAD Notification,
allegations as set out against the appellant in the charge-sheet
require consideration. The conclusion drawn by the Investigating
Officer in the charge-sheet reads as below: -
“16. …. Reached Pravasi Ekta Park, Bhumiheen Camp
Govindpuri New Delhi where a person was seen sitting near the
corner of the park in a state of euphoria, who seeing the police
party started moving from there, then HC Jaiprakash NO
1508/SE, with the help of me HC, swiftly approached and
overpowered that person. On enquiry, the abovementioned
4
persons said his name and address as Irfan S/o Azeem Khan
R/o F-103 Navjeevan Camp Govindpuri Delhi age 22 years.
When the above person asked Irfan the reason for sitting there,
he started talking unnecessary things and could not give any
satisfactory answer. The person mentioned above was
repeatedly putting his hand on the pocket of the pant he was
wearing and looked like he was trying to hide something. On
suspicion, a cursory search of the above person Irfan was
carried out. During the search, a button knife was recovered
from the right pocket of the pants he was wearing. The
blueprint was prepared by opening the seized buttoned knife
with the help of a button and placing it on a white paper. On
measuring from the split, the length of the blade of the knife
was found to be 14.5 CM, the width of the knife was 3 CMS, the
length of the handle was 17 CMS, the width of the handle was
2 CMS and the total length of the knife was found to be 31.5
CMS. The seized buttoned knife which is made of metal. And
the handle has silver metal strips on both sides. And in the
middle there is an iron-like metal strip, which is joined with the
help of a nail. There is a brass metal button on the joint of the
knife and the handle. With the help of which the knife opens
and closes. Seized buttoned knife was closed with the help of
button and kept in a white cloth and prepared the memo and
sealed with stamp JP and handed over the seal to HC Budhi
Prakash No. 2109/SE which accused Irfan S/o. Ajeem Khan
R/o. F-103 Navjeevan Camp New Delhi Age-22 Yrs was illegally
in his possession of button knife who violated DAD- No. F-
13/451/179 (Home General) Dated 29/10/1980 of offense u/s
25/54/59 Arms Act has been committed therefore HC
Budhiprakash No. 2109/SE was sent to the police station.
….
During the investigation, the HC prepared a map of place of
occurrence at the behest of HC Jaipraksh NO 963/SE.
Thereafter accused Irfan S/O Azim Khan Address F-103
Navjeevan Camp, New Delhi aged 22 New Delhi was
implemented who told on interrogation that I am living with
family at the above address. In my family, apart from me, my
parents have 6 sisters and a brother. As a child, falling in the
wrong company, I had become addicted to drugs and started
committing petty thefts. About 10-12 days ago, I was in lock-
up Govindpuri police station in a theft case and went to jail.
About a month back, I had bought this buttonhole knife from a
boy named Akash for Rs.500, which I had kept hidden in my
house. With the intention of snatching, today I kept this
buttoned knife in my pocket and came to Parvasi Ekta Park
where the police caught me and recovered the buttoned knife
from me. I made a mistake, please forgive me. After which the
accused Irfan above was arrested following all the guidelines of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the trial case, after the
5
interrogation and circumstances was found to be arrestable.
The article which was seized in the present case was kept in the
storeroom. Presented the accused Irfan before the Hon'ble
Court and sent to JC.
From the investigation till now, from the statement of
witnesses, from the recovery, a lot of evidence has been passed
against U/sec 25/54/59 Arms Act against the accused Irfan
S/O Azim Khan, Address Khana No. 11. That's why the challan
is presented in the court after performing the investigation. The
accused should be prosecuted, and the witness should be given
due respect by summoning them and asking for assistance. The
accused is in JC. Challan was sent for your consideration.”
8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid conclusions as set out in the
charge-sheet would indicate that there is no allegation whatsoever
that the buttondar knife recovered from the appellant was in
violation of any of the stipulations contained in the DAD
th
Notification dated 29 October, 1980 which mandates 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.’
9. 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
6
specified reasons i.e., “manufacture, sale or possession for sale or
test” as indicated in the DAD notification.
10. 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.
11. Specific plea has been taken at Question of Law No. (B) and
Grounds Nos. C and E of the SLP that the allegation against the
appellant is 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.’
12. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, the
specific assertions so made by the appellant are not refuted and
there is no averment therein that the appellant was possessing the
knife for the purpose of ‘manufacture, sale or possession for sale
or for test.’ In the preliminary submission No. 5.1, all that is
7
averred on behalf of the respondent-State is that the possession of
th
the said weapon is contrary to the DAD notification dated 29
October, 1980. Though the respondent-State has raised an
objection in the counter affidavit that the aspect as to whether the
possession of the knife was for sale or for test would have to be
gone into at the stage of trial, but indisputably before requiring the
accused to undergo trial for simple possession of the knife, the
prosecution would have to at least present the basic allegations
constituting the ingredients of the offences in the charge-sheet.
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.
13. The High Court of Delhi while dismissing the quashing
petition, filed on behalf of the appellant, under Section 482 CrPC,
did not advert to these fundamental flaws in the prosecution case
and rejected the quashing petition filed by the appellant cursorily.
14. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that on going
through the allegations as set out in the charge-sheet supra , there
is not even a whisper that the appellant was carrying the buttondar
knife of the dimensions stated above, for the purpose of sale or
test. Hence, the proceedings sought to be undertaken against the
8
appellant in pursuance of the impugned charge-sheet for the
offence under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, tantamount
to an abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed.
th
15. Thus, the impugned order dated 18 April, 2023 is set aside.
Resultantly, the FIR No. 477 of 2022 as well as the charge-sheet
filed in consequence thereof and all proceedings sought to be
undertaken against the appellant are hereby quashed and set
aside.
16. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
December 03, 2024
9