Case title: Srinivas S N Vs. The State of Karnataka
Case No.: CRL.P No. 1858 of 2024
Decided on: 01.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice S Vishwajith Shetty
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case originated from CR.NO.82/2022 registered by BIAL Police Station, Devanahalli against Srinivas S N for an offense under Section 30 of the ARMS Act, 1959. Srinivas S N filed a petition (CRL.P No. 1858 of 2024) seeking to quash the proceedings in the mentioned case. The petitioner argued that the offense he was accused of was non-cognizable under Section 30 of the ARMS Act, leading to the legal dispute and subsequent court proceedings.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 30 of the ARMS Act, 1959: Pertains to the offense for which Srinivas S N was accused, related to arms.
Section 38 of the ARMS Act: States that all offenses under the ARMS Act are cognizable within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code: Relates to the requirements for registering a case by the police.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant’s contention was that the offense punishable under Section 30 of the ARMS Act was non-cognizable, as the maximum punishment for this offense is imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant argued that the police had registered the case without complying with the requirements of Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the appellant referred to a previous case where similar proceedings were quashed on similar grounds.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, contended that all offenses under the ARMS Act are considered cognizable offenses as per Section 38 of the ARMS Act. They opposed the petition to quash the proceedings, arguing that the offense under Section 30 of the ARMS Act should be treated as cognizable based on the legal provisions.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court analyzed the petitioner’s argument that the offense under Section 30 of the ARMS Act was non-cognizable due to the maximum punishment being six months of imprisonment. However, the Court referred to Section 38 of the ARMS Act, which designates all offenses under the Act as cognizable. The Court noted that a previous case had quashed proceedings based on similar grounds but found that Section 38 was not considered in that decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that the offense under Section 30 of the ARMS Act should be treated as cognizable, leading to the rejection of the petitioner’s contentions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
