Acquittal in Arms Act Case Due to Lack of Essential Ingredients in the Charge-sheet

The Supreme Court of India acquitted the accused in the Arms Act case due to a lack of essential ingredients in the charge-sheet. Appellant Irfan Khan was charged under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, for possessing a buttondar knife. The appellant was accused under the said charges arising out of an incident in Pravasi Park, Delhi, when his search resulted in recovering a buttondar knife. The knife measured 31.5 cm in length- blade length 14.5 cm and handle 17 cm and 3 cm wide.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and further proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, and thus the instant appeal is preferred before the Supreme Court of India. Observations of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that the recovered knife in this case was smaller in dimensions as compared to the dimensions mentioned under Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A) of the Arms Rules, 2016. These rules forbid the carrying of knives with blade lengths exceeding 9 inches (22.86 cm) and widths exceeding 2 inches (5.08 cm).

Applicability of DAD Notification: The Court took into consideration the notification issued by DAD, Delhi Administration, dated October 29, 1980, which extended the applicability of the Arms Act to those kinds of knives whose length and thickness were less than the dimensions specified in the Arms Act and Rules, provided they were intended for "manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test". Such a notification, the Court held, would apply only if the recovered knife was intended for those purposes.

Lack of Allegations with Regard to the Purpose of Possession: The Court examined the charge-sheet and found that there was no allegation, even, that the appellant was in possession of the knife for "manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test", as mentioned in the DAD Notification. It was contended that all that the charge-sheet stated was that the appellant was illegally possessing a knife in contravention of the DAD notification.

Abuse of Process of Law: The Supreme Court held that prosecuting the appellant on the basis of the charge-sheet, which did not contain the elements of the offense as defined in the DAD Notification, constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court held that after the investigation and review of evidence collected, the prosecution cannot improve upon its case which was presented in the charge-sheet.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court had dismissed the appellant's quashing petition in a very casual manner without addressing the basic flaws in the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court, relying on the absence of allegations with regard to the purpose of possessing the knife in the charge-sheet, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and all further proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that mere possession of the buttondar knife did not amount to a violation of the DAD notification since the prosecution had failed to establish that the possession was for "manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test".

Coram: Justice P Sri Narsimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Between: Irfan Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of Judgement: 03-12-2024