[X of 1878]
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” is “arms” within
the definition of the Arms Act even if they are taken to be “daggers’.
Saiful Islam Milon and another vs State
50 DLR 529.
Sections 4, 13, & 19(e)—No license is required to keep a dagger and
consequently a person cannot be
convicted if he is found in possession of dagger. Mozammel Hossain vs State DLR
Sections 18 & 26—The
respondents having not filed
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 and others 51 DLR 471.
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.
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 DLR 515.
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
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.
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
ofany 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.
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 and 2 others vs State 49 DLR 167.
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 alias Arju
and another Petitioners vs State 51 DLR (AD) 120.
constitute offences under the aforesaid sections of law possession and control
must mean conscious possession and actual control with necessary mens rea.
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.
ammunition in question was kept by the accused persons in the ditch which was under
their exclusive control and no approach was there by anyone else except that of
the accused. 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 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 alias Babul Sikdar vs State 47
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
can not be sustained in law. Mukbul
Hossain Santu (Md) vs Bangladesh & others 50 DLR 591.