IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8193/2018 BETWEEN:
1 C.P.RANGACHAR S/O PADMANABHA AGED 76 WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR YUKEN INDIA LTD.
R/A NO.B-4, EPSILON VILLAS YEMLUR HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION YEMLUR VILLAGE ROAD YEMLUR POST BEHIND HAL AIRPORT BANGALORE 560 037 2 TANIGAI S/O SUNDARAMURTHI 31 YEARS WORKING AS HR & ADMIN YUKEN INDIA LIMITED R/A 452/2, 4TH CROSS CHINNAELASAGIRI HOSUR TOWN KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE 635109 3 GANGADARAIAH S/O HANDANAIAH 30 YEARS WORKING AS DRIVER YUKEN INDIA LTD R/A 4TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE 560079 ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (L & O) ANUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE DISTRICT 560 087 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE -1 2 MR.RAVINDRANATH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 57 YEARS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HETHAKKI GRAM PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 561103 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.831/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, HOSKOTE (FIR NO.38/2018 REGISTERED BY ANUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE DISTRICT) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 25, 27 AND 30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though petition is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both parties.
2. Heard Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the records 3. First petitioner herein is possessing Arms licence issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City valid up to 31.05.2021 namely, to hold a Pistol and Double barrel gun. On account of State Assembly Elections being declared to be held on 12.05.2018, first petitioner was called upon to deposit said arms at HAL Police Station on or before 20.04.2018. On account of first petitioner not keeping good health, he had issued authorization letter dated 17.04.2018 authorizing second petitioner to collect the arms from his house at Yemlur, Bangalore and deposit them with HAL Police Station. Second petitioner after collecting the said arms from first petitioner, is said to have proceeded to HAL Police Station and Flying Squad employed for the pre- election detection, intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-A-4572 in which petitioners were travelling on 18.04.2018 at 12.30 p.m. near Bagur Check post which was driven by third petitioner and found in the said vehicle, two arms kept in a box and same was being transported. Hence, on the ground of petitioners having violated the conditions imposed for grant of licence wherein it was not allowed to be carried to Malur, Kolar District, vehicle and arms came to be seized and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.38/2018 against petitioners and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.831/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. It is the contention of Smt.Neeraja Kamath, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that first petitioner being aged had authorised second petitioner to deposit the arms in question for which he had a licence and even before expiry of the date stipulated for such deposit, the vehicle in which arms were carried by second petitioner was intercepted and seized and there being no prohibition for the same being carried in person by the licence holder as per Rule 96 of the Arms Rules, 2018, she submits that continuation of proceedings against first petitioner (licence holder) who is aged 76 years and his employees – petitioners 2 and 3 would not serve any fruitful purpose or in other words, continuation of proceedings against petitioners could be oppressive and abuse of process of law. Hence, she has prayed for allowing the petition and has sought for quashing of proceedings pending against petitioners in C C No.831/2018.
5. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP would support the action taken by respondent-1 contending that petitioners have violated the condition prescribed for grant of Arms licence.
6. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it would emerge from records first petitioner was possessing valid arms licence issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City which empowered the petitioner to hold a Pistol and Double barrel gun and said licence was valid up to 31.05.2021. On account of elections to the Karnataka State Assembly being declared to be held on 12.05.2018, first petitioner was required to deposit the said arms with the jurisdictional police. However, due to illness of petitioner on account of his advanced age, he had authorised second petitioner by authorization letter dated 18.04.2018 to carry the weapons for being handed over to the Sub Inspector of Police, HAL Police Station and as such, first petitioner had handed over weapons to the custody of second petitioner. In fact, said authorization dated 18.04.2018 has also been counter signed by second petitioner. It is in this background, second petitioner had carried said weapons in the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-A-4572 which was driven by third petitioner for depositing said weapons with the HAL police station and at that point of time, near Bagalur circle which is in the outskirts of Bangalore city, vehicle came to be intercepted and arms/weapons in question found in the said vehicle came to be seized. In fact, licence issued in favour of the was also carried by the second petitioner.
7. Complaint lodged by the jurisdictional Police on 18.04.2018 would only indicate that there has been absolute bonafide exhibited by first petitioner in complying with licence conditions. Even otherwise, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96 of the Arms Rules, 2016, empowers licence holder to carry the weapon along with his personal luggage in reasonable quantities for his own use dehors sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Arms Act, 1959. In other words, Rule 96 itself empowers the licence holder to carry licenced arms along with him and as such, condition of licence having been violated cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, first petitioner being aged 76 years and there being no other allegation by the prosecution against first petitioner for having violated licence conditions at any point of time, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioners further would not be in the interest of justice and even a plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in CC No.831/2018 (FIR No.38/2018 registered by Anugondanahalli Police Station) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Hoskote for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 against petitioners is hereby quashed and they are acquitted of said offences.
Sd/- JUDGE *sp