Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Friday(10/7/2020), conviction of former IAS Officer and Former Chief Secretary of the state of Nagaland S.S Ahluwalia under Section 417 of IPC along with Section 471 IPC along with Section 467 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act was kept aside by Sh. Harish Kumar, Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts. The appellant was accused of having knowingly and dishonestly used a forged license for buying two weapons and having possession of more firearms than the permissible limit of 3 as mentioned under Section 3 of the Arms Act. Not maintaining the limit mentioned in Section 3 of the Arms Act is punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Under Section 39 of the Arms Act, no prosecution can be set up against any person regarding any offence under Section 3 without having any previous sanction of the District Magistrate. The disputes raised by the Prosecution and the Appellant and the Observations by the Court were as follows:
Was CBI competent to carry on investigation and file report under Section 173 CrPC when the sanction had been withdrawn by the State of Nagaland and the RC had been quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi?
These ground of appeal were rejected by the Ld. Judge and held that these issues were no more res integra and had already been deal with by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi.
Lack of Sanction under Section 197 CrPC
There was no requirement of sanction under section 197 of CrPC, however the Ld. Judge declared that "it must be borne in mind that Section 197 CrPC bar jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance and since it relates to competence of the court, therefore, it can be raised at any stage even if it was inadvertently not raised before the Trial Court."
Whether the appellant had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the authority to issue a fourth arm license and whether the appellant had manipulated/ added in the said license?
The Ld. Judge held that the Trial Court had cleared the appellant under Section 420 and 467 of IPC as the CBI failed to prove the same.
Whether Arms rules do not permit more than one weapon under one license?
Due to the failure by the prosecution to prove that whether the fourth license was issued for one arm only or not, the Ld. Judge upheld the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant. The Judge pronounced that if there had been a rule that only one firearm will be issued under one license then there would be no need to disclose each weapon.
Whether the prosecution against the appellant was legally instituted in respect of the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act with a valid sanction as required under Section 39 of the Arms Act?
The judge stated that it was held in many decisions by the Apex Court and High Court that want of sanction is taken away by the jurisdiction of the court and the defect being non-curable.
Thus, conviction of the accused under Section 25 Of the Arms Act cannot be sustained for both previous sanction and for want of valid sanction irrespective of being post or previous to the instituted of the prosecution. It was declared by the appellant court that the entire proceedings in respect of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was void and guiltless the appellant.
It was then declared by the appellate court that the entire proceedings in respect of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was void and acquitted the appellant.
86540
103860
630
114
59824