ARMS ACT, 1878 AND ARMS RULES, 1924
Publish date: April 19, 2016
Arms Act, 1878
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 lo 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 Act 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 license s of the guns in question under section 18(a) of the Arms Act or under any provision of the Arms Rules of 1924. As the license s 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 sections 16(1) and 19(1) of the Arms Act read with section 26 of the Special Powers Act is not sustainable in law.
Anawar Hossains. Vs State 40 DLR 251.
Cancellation and suspension of license for arms—The necessity of recording reasons by the appropriate authority in writing for the cancellation of the license to be emphasized as a general rule—If the appropriate authority chooses not 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 (AD) 170.
Orders passed by the District Magistrate cancelling license s 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 principal of natural justice.
Rezaul Karim (Md) Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs 44 DLR 110.
Uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice cannot be basis of conviction of an accused.
Kazi ibrahim Vs State 41 DLR 524.
A person cannot be convicted on surmises and conjectures and from any analogical deduction.
Kazi Ibrahim VS. State 4I DLR 524.
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.
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.
Arms Rules, 1924
Column 2 of the Table Schedule I as amended by notification No 896—Section II dated Dhaka the l9th November l973—The decision in this case having depended on findings of facts as to whether the seized arm 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 process of the court is not required to be exercised.
Hossain Mohammad Ershad Vs. State 43 DLR 150