- (1.) M. L. Singhal, J. Since the facts and question of law involved in all these ten bail applications are similar, the same are being decided together.
(2.) THE two applicants, namely, Anath Nath Neogi and Ram Nath Neogi, real brothers, Proprietors of M/s. S. N. Neogi and Company, Johnstonganj, Allahabad, are alleged to have sold 30 bore pistols, manufactured in foreign countries, without the weapons containing maker's and manfaucturer's name and other identifica tion mark, required by the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Indian Arms Act, punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Anns Act, Further, the applicants are al leged to have committed offences, punish able under Sections 121-A, 122, 467, 468 and 471, IPC. I have heard the teamed Counsel for the accused-applicants and the learned Advocate General. The learned Counsel for the ac cused-applicants argued that though the weapons sold did not contain the maker's and manfuacturer's name required under Section 8 (2) of the Indian Arms Act, still the offence is triable by Magistrate and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also to fine. Further, there is no evidence as yet to implicate the applicants in the so- called "antisocial activities" and applicant's con nection with any "anti-national organisa tion". The applicants have purchased the weapons from various arms' dealers in the various States and have been supplying to the persons who have been granted licence by the district administration. When the applicants after purchasing the various arms brought into the district Allahabad, trnasport licence was always issued by the District Magistrate permitting sale and transport of fire-arm.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Ad vocate General argued that it is not a so simple case as argued by the learned Counsel for the accused-applicant. The weapons are sophisticated weapons, out of the ten weapons, one weapon manfuactrued in China and permission has also been granted by the State Government for prosecution of the accused persons under Sections 121-A, 122, 467, 468 and 471, IPC on 4-1-1998. The learned Sessions Judge reject ing the bail applications of the accused-applicants in all the ten cases, has ob served that there is no evidence in the Case Diary to show that above offences under the Indina Penal 'code are made out and further the Case Diary shows that no forgery has been committed. The weapons have been supplied by the applicants to the various persons to whom licence has been granted by the district administration.;