Section 3—The main consideration for deciding whether a knife is an arm or not is to be decided on consideration of the fact as to for what purpose it is used or intended to be used. Shuinya @ Suruj Ali vs State 53 DLR 527.Section 4—The term “arms” may be extended to arms of similar type otherwise the definition of arms would remain a lame duck definition. Kiriz no doubt has not been mentioned in the short list of ”arms” but that does not exclude it from the category of arms. Ershad Ali vs State 52 DLR 544.
Section 4—One of the weapons recovered from the possession of the accused appears to be a dagger used as weapon of offence or defence. A dagger cannot be said to be used as household instrument. Rezaul Karim Razu vs State 57 DLR 104.
Section 4—To bring under the definition of “dagger” an article must be a “stabbing weapon” with pointed and edged blade and it must also be a “deadly weapon”. The prosecution, appears to have failed to prove that “Disco razor” or “Spring Knife” are “arms” within the definition of the Arms Act even if they are taken to be “daggers’. Saiful Islam Milon vs State 50 DLR 529.
Sections 4, 13, & 19(e)—No licence is required to keep a dagger and consequently a person cannot be convicted if he is found in possession of a dagger. Mozammel Hossain vs State 49 DLR 614.
Sections 14, 15 and 18—A person being possessed of any firearms under licence granted by the authority cannot be said to be an illegal possessor of arms—An offence under the Arms Act for such possession would not be deemed committed unless licence is validly cancelled following the provision of law—Unless he is asked to deposit and surrender the arms within certain time and he fails to deposit the arms within the time. Altaf Hossain Golondas vs Bangladesh 57 DLR 323.
Sections 16 & 18—Appellant was neither given any notice of enquiry nor was he given any hearing before cancellation of arms—Enquiry undertaken on a sprawling private complaint made by the local upazila Chairman—No emergency or any other compelling situation preventing giving of notice of enquiry to the appellant—Nothing on record to show that any specific case was started against the appellant involving alleged misuse of revolver— Inquisitorial nature of enquiry aggravating the degree of unfairness—Principles of natural justice to be observed in proceedings affecting “the person or property or other right of parties concerned”—Court adds a rider to the observance of the principle of natural justice that so far as exercise of power under section 18 of the Arms is concerned, the absence of a prior notice or hearing may not always invalidate the order passed thereunder if the security of the public peace is involved. Sk Ali Ahmed vs Secretary, Home Affairs 40 DLR (AD)170.
Sections 16(1) and 19(1)—The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shariatpur had no jurisdiction whatsoever to cancel the licences of the guns in question under section 18(a) of the Arms Act or under any provision of the Arms of 1924. As the licences of the guns in question were not cancelled by any legally competent authority such as the District Magistrate or by any authorised officer to whom he is subordinate as required under the provisions of Arms Act or the Arms Rules, cancellation thereof by the SDO is illegal. Conviction under section 16(1) and 19(1) of the Arms Act read with section 26 of the Special Powers Act is not sustainabIe in law. Anawar Hossain vs State 40 DLR 251.
Section 18—Cancellation and suspension of licence for arms—The necessity of recording reasons by the appropriate authority in writing for the cancellation of the licence to be emphasised as a general rule—If the appropriate authority chooses to make its order a speaking one and merely relies on the materials on record, its order stands a greater risk of being struck down. Sk Ali Ahmed vs Secretary, Home Affairs 40 DLR (AD) 170.
Section 18- Orders passed by the District Magistrate cancelling licences of guns of the petitioners without giving them any notice and opportunity of being heard and giving no reason for cancellation are illegal, being violative of the principle of natural justice. Rezaul Karim vs Ministry of Home Affairs 44 DLR 110.
Section 18—The petitioner has acquired a legal right of being heard before any action is taken in respect of licence which were duly granted to him. But in the instant case it is clear and obvious that the licences were cancelled in flagrant violation of the provision of section 18 of the Arms Act as well as the principle of natural justice. Riazuddin vs Government of Bangladesh 52 DLR 361.
Sections 18 & 26—The respondents having not filed any affidavit-in-opposition disclosing materials justifying retention of the petitioner’s gun and licences in their possession, the impugned order is liable to be declared as having been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Major (Retd) M Asaduzzaman vs District Magistrate, Jessore 51 DLR 471.
Section 19(a) & (f)—Mere knowledge of the accused that the arms or ammunition was lying at the spot pointed out by him, in the absence of any evidence or circumstance to show that he had exclusive possession over the spot or that none else had access to it, cannot make him liable for conviction. When the first information report named and seizure list witnesses, who are the owners of shops and businesses concerns adjacent to the place of the occurrence. do not support the prosecution story of recovery of arms or ammunition from the possession of the accused, it is unsafe to base conviction on the evidence of police personnels interested in the prosecution case. Iftekhar Hasan Choudhury vs State 47 DLR 451.
Section 19(a) & (f)—The arms in question have not, been recovered from possession of the appellants and admittedly, they were not present at the place of occurrence—The arms and ammunition were recovered from the possession of the arrested accused persons and they disclosed the names of their other companions who are the appellants—The appellants cannot be held to be in possession of any arms. Pannu Mollah & anr vs State 56 DLR (AD) 142.
Section 19(a) & 19(f)—There may not be separate arms and ammunition in the possession of the two accused petitioners but when all of them were jointly together and the police party was receiving revolver shots and cocktails it cannot be said that the revolver and the cartridges recovered from Mokim Gazi were only in his exclusive possession. The law will ascribe joint possession in such circumstances. Lutfar Rahman vs State 51 DLR (AD) 120.
Sections 19(a) & 19(f)—Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocate as well as the manner of arrest of the convict- petitioner after chasing them following the encounter in the face of firing by the convicts towards the police force and the recovery of the arms and ammunitions from their possession, we are of the view that discrepancies pointed out by the learned Advocate cannot disprove charges levelled against the convict-petitioner. The convict-petitioner and others were caught red handed. The High Court Division considered the materials and evidence on record and on detailed discussion has correctly arrived at its decision dismissing the appeal. Jahedul Islam vs State 62 DLR (AD) 270.
Section 19(a) & (f)—The Tribunal under the Jana Nirapatta (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain has no jurisdiction to deal with the cases under section 19(a) and (f) of the Arms Act, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Powers Act and since the charges have been framed by this Tribunal also against offences which falls under the Arms Act, the trial as proceeding is illegal. Ahmed Hossain alias Mohammad Hossain vs State 55 DLR 680.
Section 19(f)—To constitute offences under the aforesaid sections of law possession and control must mean conscious possession and actual control with necessary mens rea.
When incriminating articles involving offences under section 19(f) of the Arms Act and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act are recovered from a place in the occupation or possession of more than one person and it is not possible to fix the liability of any particular individual, the head of the family cannot be held liable for the offences. Kashem alias Md Abdul Kashem vs State 47 DLR 438.
Section 19(f)—The ammunition in question was kept by the accused persons in the ditch which was under their exclusive control and no approach was there by any one else except that of the accuseds. In view of such facts and circumstances the impugned judgment and order of conviction is set aside. Hanif Khan vs State 50 DLR 541.
Section 19(f)—Appellants leading the police to place of occurrence and recovery of arms— Appellants cannot be held guilty of the charge of unauthorised possession of arms under section 19(f) of the Arms Act. Abdul Khaleque vs State 40 DLR 493.
Section 19(f)—Recovery of arms—culpability—mere knowledge of the accused that the arms were lying at the spot pointed out by him in the absence of evidence that he himself kept the same there or that he had exclusive possession over it, he cannot be made liable under section 19 (f). Abul Hashem Master vs State 44 DLR 159.
Section 19(f)— ”Possession’ or “Control” essential to constitute offence under section 19(f) of the Act must be conscious possession or actual control– Possession or control of incriminating articles constitute offence. To constitute offence there must be mens rea or guilty knowledge. Babul vs State 57DLR 158.
Section 19A— The place of recovery being a public place it cannot be said that the appellant was in exclusive possession of that place. That being so appellant cannot be held liable under section 19A of the Arms Act. Abul Kashem vs State 50 DLR 356.
Section 19A—Uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice cannot be basis of conviction of an accused. Kazi Ibrahim vs State 41 DLR 524.
Section 19A—A person cannot be convicted on surmises and conjectures and from any analogical deduction. Kazi Ibrahim vs State 41 DLR 524.
Secton 19A—The place of recovery being a public place it cannot be said that the appellant was in exclusive possession of that place. The appellant be held liable under section 19A of the Arms Act. Abdus Sattar vs State 62 DLR 298.
Section 19A(f)—Even if the incriminating articles were recovered from the thatched hut of the appellant such recovery ipso facto will not connect him with the offence under the Arms Act in the absence of any evidence to show that he had himself kept the same there or none else had any access to that place. Nazrul Islam vs State 50 DLR515.
Section 19A & (f)— Accused cannot be convicted for constructive possession of arms and ammunition. He must have either exclusive or conscious possession or actual or effective control of the same.
It the Court finds that the accused had neither exclusive nor conscious possession nor effective or actual control of any arms and ammunition the accused is not liable to be convicted. In the instant case we find that the accused had conscious possession and effective or actual control of the revolver and live bullets recovered from him. Abul Bashar Shaikh vs State 51 DLR 252.
Sections 19(A) & (f)—There is no reason why the evidence of the police personnel should be discarded simply because they belonged to police force. They came before the court and testified to the occurrence. They were fully cross- examined. Their evidence is also evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act. Asadul Hossain vs State 57 DLR 615.
Sections 19A and (f)—When a place is not under the exclusive possession of the accused and the possibility of access of others to the place cannot be ruled out, he cannot be held guilty of offence under the Act. Talebur Rahman alias Taleb vs State 49 DLR 167.
Sections 19A and 19(f)—As it is found from the evidence on record that the place from where the arms and ammunition were recovered as per showing of the appellant was absolutely an open place accessible to others. The appellant had no exclusive possession and control of the arms and ammunition in question consciously with mens rea. His appeal is therefore allowed. Anisur Rahman Gazi alias Chhotu vs State 59 DLR 488.
Sections 19A and 19(f)—Even if independent witnesses and the seizure list witnesses do not support the prosecution case conviction can be given relying only upon the evidence of Police witness if it inspires confidence or is worthy of credit. Tuta Pramanik (Md) vs State 59 DLR 492.
Sections 19A & 19(f)—Conviction can be well based on the testimony of the Police personnel if it is supported by other evidence on record or to if it inspires confidence. Faruq vs State 59 DLR 104.
Sections 19A & 19(f)—Even if the seizure list witnesses do not support the prosecution case or speak for the prosecution the conviction can be given if the case is proved otherwise on the basis of evidence. Faruq (Md) vs State (Criminal) 59 DLR 104.
Section 19A & 19(f)—It would be unjust and illegal to pass a conviction in a situation wherefrom the entire evidence on record shows that the place of recovery of arms and ammunition even though shown by the appellant was an open place free for everyone to enter. Faruq (Md) vs State 59 DLR 104.
Section 19A & 19(f)—There is nothing in this clause about exclusive or sole possession or exclusive or sole control. The test provided by the section is not as to whom the arms belong but whether they are in the possession or under the control of the persons charged. What is contemplated by this clause, is actual and physical possession and control and not merely a possession or control by construction of law. The word control means effective control and the word possession means exclusive possession under this clause. Mohinuddin vs State 61 DLR 35.
Section 25—Since the arms were recovered at the instance of the accused, no search was necessary, invoking the application of the provisions provided in law for carrying out a search. No question of following the provisions of sections 103 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 25 of the Arms Act therefore arises. Kamruzzaman vs State 47 DLR 416.
Section 26—Only the Government is empowered to seize arms of any person and to detain the same for such time as it thinks necessary for the public safety. The District Magistrate has acted in this respect without jurisdiction and beyond his authority which cannot be sustained in law. Mukbul Hossain Santu vs Bangladesh 50 DLR 591.
Sections 25 & 30—These provisions shall apply when a Magistrate passes an order for search. In the instant case, there is no such order from the Magistrate. So, the question of compliance with the provisions of section 25 does not arise at all. Shuinya @ Suruj Ali vs State 53 DLR 527.
Column 2 of the Table Schedule I as amended by notification No 896—Section II dated Dhaka the 19th November 1973—The decision in this case having depended on findings of facts as to whether the seized arms were recovered from the possession of the petitioner, whether the same came within the exception provided for and covered by amnesty, if any, declared by the Government, the extraordinary power to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court is not required to be exercised. HM Ershad vs State 43 DLR 150.Rule 30—No licence is required to keep a dagger and consequently a person cannot be convicted if he is found in possession of a dagger. Mozammel Hossain vs State 49 DLR 614.
Rule 42—A person being possessed of any firearms under licence granted by the authority cannot be said to be an illegal possessor of arms— An offence under the Arms Act for such possession would not be deemed committed unless licence is validly cancelled following the provision of law— Unless he is asked to deposit and surrender the arms within certain time and he fails to deposit the arms within the time. Altaf Hossain Golondas vs Bangladesh 57 DLR 323.