Quash: Appellant’s possession of buttondar knife was for any of the prohibited categories as indicated in the DAD Notification and hence quashed

Facts

2. The appellant seeks quashment of the proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR No. 477 of 2022 dated 9th July, 2022 lodged against him at Police Station, Govind Puri for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 19591. 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 recovered from his possession.

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 appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing 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 stands rejected vide order dated 18th April, 2023 which is assailed in this appeal by special leave.

Analysis

Knife having blade length of more than 9 inches and width of more than 2 inches comes within the purview of weapon

5. As per Rule 3 read with Category V of Schedule I (Part A) of 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:-

“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)

No allegation in charge sheet that buttondar knife recovered from appellant was in violation of DAD notification

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 Notification dated 29th 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 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.

High Court dismissed the quash

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.

Conclusion

Since the allegation in the charge sheet has not spoken the accused carrying the knife with the dimension set out above the case is quashed

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 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.

15. Thus, the impugned order dated 18th 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.

Party

Irfan Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – Criminal Appeal No. 2024 – 2024 INSC 924 – December 03, 2024