STATE Vs. HUSSAIN MIRDHA
LAWS(GAU)-1958-12-2
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 05,1958

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
Hussain Mirdha Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ABDUR RAHIMAN KUTTY V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.DEKA, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is by the State Government against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts on 19 -3 -56. Five accused persons were tried of an offence Under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act before the Court of Session and the learned Additional Judge found the charge against Hussain Mirdha not substantiated on facts. As regards the other fom accused persons the learned Additional Judge found a case made out in respect of the charge Under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act, but since he was of the opinion that sanction for the prosecution was not given by a competent authority, he held the trial to be bad. and, as such acquit all the accused persons. Of tfiese acquitted persons Rampraaad is dead. The State Government) has, therefore, come up in appeal against the order of acquittal of Hussain Mirdha. Wazuddin. Mansur Ali and Kami Sikdar the surviving accused.
(2.)THE case for the prosecution was that on 12 -6 -53 Nagiram Saharia, Officer in charge of the Tarabari Police Station got an information that some people were collecting at a place known as Barabhita within his jurisdiction, †" for the purpose of committing dacoity and Nagiram Soharia on this information took two Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police and ten Constables with him and started on a boat to apprehend the persons who had proceeded for the purpose of committing decoity. When he reached Barbhita which lay at the mouth of a river known as Kukarjan. he found a boat lying anchored with some persons on board.
He then made a dash towards the boat and on reaching the same he with his whole party got into that boat when Kanu Sikdar is alleged to have aimed '' a gun at the police party, but he was soon overpowered. Accused Wazuddin was trying to escape by swimming but he was chased and caught. Accused Ramprasad was also caught at the place near the boat. Accused Mansur stayed in the boat. The police parly started a search of the boat in the presence of some outsiders and the accused persons. During the search the police recovered two guns and one barrel of a gun with nineteen live cartridges from the boat. All these articles were seized and Tarun Sar.na Assistant Sub -Inspector prepared a seizure -list as asked by the Officer -in -Charge Nagiram Saharia.
The four accused persons were put under arres1 and were taken to the thana along with the seizei. articles and the boat from where these articles were recovered. The boat belonged to Hussain Mirdha and it was alleged that he was seen at Barbhita in the early morning of 12 -6 -1953 coming out from the boat, but at the time the police searched the boat and recovered the guns and cartridges he was not there. He was, however, put under arrest few days later and was sent up in connection with this easel for complicity in possessing arms and ammunition without licence. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and their defence was that these articles were not recovered from their possession.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed the evidence on the point and came to the finding that no case was made out, at least satisfactorily, against Hussain Mirdha. But against the other 1 four accused, he stated in the judgment that he was satisfied that the arms and ammunition in question were in conscious possession of the four accused persons and he would have no hesitation in holding that Monsur, Wazuddin, Kanu Sikdar and Ramprasad could have been convicted of an offence Under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act. were not the prosecution defective because of want of sanction.

In this case Mr. Choudhary appearing for the State has pressed one point before us with emphasis and that is that the learned Additional Judge was wrong in holding that there was no proper sanction; for prosecution of the accused -persons as contemplated Under Section 29 of the Arms Act. In the circumstances of the case he did not press that Hussaift Mirdha could be convicted; but as to the other three surviving accused he pressed that they should be convicted under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act and sentenced according to law.

(3.)MR . Mohiuddin appearing for the accused persons has tried to show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in holding that there was no proper sanction for prosecuting the accused persons and that the order of acquittal was correct. Therefore, this is the main point that comes up for consideration in this case it being accepted almost as a matter of course that the learned Additional Judge was right in his findings as to facts.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.