Introduction
Recently the High Court of Karnataka situated at Bangalore had declined to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the previous secretary of Taralabalu Kendra for having ownership of a pistol equipped at the address of the Kendra and for keeping the firearm in the premises of the Kendra, Which is a house of Worship.
Facts of the case
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings
It is alleged by the informant, that the petitioner was being previous Secretary staying in the Kendra, was possessing a pistol since 2017 by furnishing the address of the Taralabalu Kendra, and had kept the pistol in the premises of the Kendra, which is a religious institution, by possessing and preserving pistol in the premises which are prohibited and are an offense under Section 3(c) and 4 of 4 the Act which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Keeping a pistol is prohibited in this religious institution. A notice was issued to the petitioner.
petitioner has strenuously contended that there was a dispute between the senior pontiff and junior pontiff due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
further contended, that the petitioner obtained the license for possession of the pistol. Accordingly, the police verified the spot where he had given the address of the Mutt. Thereafter, a report has been sent by the RT Nagar police. Accordingly, the license has been granted, as per the Arms Act. If a license was given to an address, he must keep the arms at the address given by the police under a safe locker and if he removes the arms, without the knowledge of the police, it will be an offence under the Arms Act 1959.
as per Rule 10 of the Arms Rule 2016, the prescribed form is provided the place has been identified and a license is given. Therefore, it cannot be said the petitioner violated any law and in accordance with the Arms Act, he owns and the address given to the police has been identified as the place of depositing the pistol. Such being the case, the petitioner cannot shift the place of a safe locker, which will be an offense under the Arms Act.
Analysis of the court
The court pointed out that the petitioner’s ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse, and the possession of a pistol was indeed prohibited under the Act. If at all the petitioner claims he is ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but ‘the ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but ‘the ignorance of the law is not an excuse’ to the petitioner and the petitioner already committed the offense under Section 3 (c), 4 of which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act.
“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.”
Written by
Kaulav Roy chowdhury
