’Daos’ and ‘Ram Daos’ which e used for domestic and agricultural purpose, do not come within the mischief of section 4 of the Arms
Act and as such the conviction under section 19(f) of the Arms Act is illegal.
Miahjan (Md) vs State 1 BLC 414
The submission made on behalf of the appellants that the combined effect of section 4 of the Arms Act and Rule 30 of the Arms Rules that
no licence is required to keep a knife or iron whip recovered from the appellants and as such none of the appellants can be convicted under the Arms Act is true but using such arms crimes are being committed rampant in the country nowadays for which it is necessary to amend the Arms Rules requiring licences to keep such arms alike India as she has already made such amendment.
Sahjahan Mallik & V others vs State 3 BLC 269
Mere absence of the husband from the house at the time of search cannot be prima facie construed that the wife was retaining the arms in
the house unauthorisedly or illegally when the prosecution has failed to file any affidavit to show that actually the husband of the petitioner is an absconder.
Jobaida Rashid, wfe of Khondaker Abdur Rashid vs State 2 BLC 135
As the licences of revolver and double barrel gun of the petitioner having been cancelled by the respondents without giving any reason
and without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the respondents have cancelled such licences in flagrant violation of the provisions of section 18 of the Arms Act as well as the principle of natural justice.
Riazuddin (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh and others 4 BLC 454.
Bail—The prosecution story as disclosed in the FIR, the 161 statement of the witnesses and the charge sheet voice the story that the
alleged ‘Revolver was in possession of the absconding principal accused, who brought it out from his pocket and handed it over to the accused-appellant and fled away in presence of the informant and other police personnels does not disclose prima facie complicity of the appellant who is entitled to get bail.
Shahan (Md) vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 2 BLC 279
The alleged recovery of Chinese kural, knife and a dagger does not come within the mischief of the provision of section 19A of the Arms
Act which made the conviction under the said section illegal but the Court can alter the charge and convict the appellants under other appropriate sections.
Masud and others vs State 3 BLC 107
The witnesses as to the recovery of the bayonet from the possession of the convict-appellant and the place and manner of recovery suffer
from glaring contradictions, inconsistencies and infirmities making it difficult to believe the recovery of the bayonet from the possession or control of the appellant and that the existence of mens rea or guilty knowledge of the appellant could not be also established by the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Sukkur Ali Kha vs State 3 BLC 206
Section 19(a) & (f)—
In view of the provisions of section 403(1) CrPC and Article 35 of the Constitution the rifle as recovered from the accused persons during investigation of the earlier dacoity case, ended in conviction, there cannot be any separate proceeding andthe prosecution against accused persons in the present case is incompetent which is liable to be quashed.
Abdur Rashid and others vs State 1 BLC 180
Section 19(a) and 19(f)—
While a police party went to arrest the accused persons then the accused No.1 started firing from a revolver and other accused persons
started throwing cocktail at the police party. While doing criminal act if one of the accused used arms and others aided him all the accused will be deemed to have possession of that arm.
Arju and others vs State 3 BLC 515
Section 19(a) & 19(f)—
On the confession of the acquitted co-accused that he had an unlicensed arms kept in the appellant’s house wherefrom the police recovered a
country-made arms and four cartridges when the convict appellant was not present at the house. Except the suspicion there is nothing on record that the appellant had the knowledge of the arms in his house or the arms was in his possession and hence the conviction is not sustainable.
Wahed Ali Gazi alias Batu vs State 4 BLC 278
Sentence—The appellant was convicted under section 19(f) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years. He had been in jail
hajat for thirty three months prior to his conviction and then he had served out the sentence for forty-three months and in all he has served out seventy six months, that is, he is deemed to have served out his entire sentence according to Jail Code. Considering the manner of offence and the philosophy of awarding sentence the period of detention in the jail hajat should be addedwith the period of sentence has been served out by the appellant.
Nidan Ali (Md) vs State 4 BLC 264.