No Allegation That He Was Carrying Buttondar Knife For The Purpose Of Sale Or Test: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet

The appellant approached the Apex Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from an FIR lodged against him under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta asserted, “...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.”

Advocate Srishti Agnihotri represented the Appellant while ASG K.M. Natraj represented the Respondent.

It was alleged, in this case, 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 recovered from his possession. 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 appellant approached the Delhi High Court with a a petition 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 stood rejected and the same was assailed in this appeal by special leave.

The Bench referred to Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A) of the Arms Rules, 2016 and observed that 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.

It was further noted that the dimensions of the knife recovered from the appellant were much lesser than the one provided in the statute and the rules framed thereunder. Reference was made to the DAD notification of 1985 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 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”, the Bench added.

On a perusal of the report under Section 173 CrPC, the Bench noticed that 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. The Bench observed that the totality of the evidence collected by the investigation officer was 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.

As per the Bench, the High Court 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.

The Court was of the view 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, tantamount to an abuse of the process of law as there was not even a whisper that the appellant was carrying the buttondar knife of the dimensions stated above, for the purpose of sale or test.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order and quashed the charge-sheet filed in consequence thereof and all proceedings sought to be undertaken against the appellant.

Cause Title: Irfan Khan v. State (Nct of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 924]

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Abishek Jebaraj, Advocates Sanjana Grace Thomas, A Reyna Shruti, Tara Elizabeth Kurian, D.P.singh

Respondent: A.S.G. K.M. Natraj, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Sharath Nambiar, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi,Sridhar Potaraju, Nidhi Khnna, Kartik Jasra, B.L.N. Shivani

Click here to read/download Judgment