Arms Act, 1878

Arms Act

[X of 1878]


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” 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
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 and others 51 DLR 471.


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(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 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
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.


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
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.


Sections 19A
and (f)
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.


Section 19F—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 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
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
can not be sustained in law. Mukbul
Hossain Santu (Md) vs Bangladesh & others 50 DLR 591.


Arms Act, 1878

Arms Act [XI of 1878]

Section 4—

’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

Section 4—

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

Section 14—

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

Jobaida Rashid, wfe of Khondaker Abdur Rashid vs State 2 BLC 135

Section 18—

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.

Section 19A—

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

Section 19A—

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

Section 19(f)—

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) &

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 and
the 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

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) &

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

Section 19(f)—

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 added
with the period of sentence has been served out by the appellant.

Nidan Ali (Md) vs State 4 BLC 264.