Arms Act, 1878 | Case Reference

Arms Act, 1878 (XI of 1878)

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. 

S. 9A-An accused in an arms case could be convicted on the basis of unimpeachable evidence of the police witnesses though the public seizure list witnesses were reluctant to tell the truth in a bid to save the accused who was either their neighbours or relative. Khasru Ahmed Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-83. 

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 14 and 15-As per sections 14 and 15 of the Act, no person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearms, except under a license. But the accused cannot show any license for the arms and ammunitions. The accused kept the firearms and ammunitions in his possession without any license or in contravention of the provisions of section 14 or section 15 of the Act. Joynal Abedin vs State, 64 DLR 393

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 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 licences of the guns in question under sectior 18(a) of the Arms Act or under any provision of the Arms Rules 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 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 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 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 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 impug- ned 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.

Cancellation and suspension of licence and confiscation of arms

Section 18 of the Arms Act speaks only of cancellation or suspension of licence of arms by different authorities while section 24 of the Act empowers the Court on conviction of the accused to confiscate the arms or ammunition in question.

In the instant case the petitioner having not being convicted in the case, the direction of the tribunal for taking steps for confiscation of the petitioner's pistol is neither legal nor proper. The petitioner's licence can, however, be always cancelled by the appropriate authority under section 18 of the Arms Act. Md. AbdusSamad Vs. The State, 15 BLD(AD)153

 

Cancellation of licence

Section 18 of the Arms Act provides that any gun licence may be cancelled or suspended by the authority by whom the same was granted provided that there are materials showing that there is a threat to security or public peace. Such authority can cancel licence after recording reasons in writing. Major (Rtd.) M. Asaduzzaman Vs. The District Magistrate, Jessore& others, 19BLD (HCD) 404

Possession of Arms

In absence of any evidence or circumstances to show that the accused had exclusive possession over the spot pointed out by him and none else had access to it, mere knowledge of the accused about the existence of arms and ammunition as a particular spot does not constitute any offence under the Arms Act, 1878, S. 19A

Shahadat Hossain Babul Vs. The State, 15BLD(HCD)485

Section 18- The petitioner was neither given any notice of enquiry nor was he given any hearing as to why his license had been cancelled by the authority concerned and the petitioner had not been implicated in criminal case for misuse of licensed arms. In the impugned order nothing has been stated as reason for cancellation of license of the petitioner. The way of cancellation of license of the petitioner is not sustainable as the law does not permit the authority, in such manner, as they did. Shah Nijam Uddin Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh, 68 DLR 327

Section 18A-Since admittedly the petitioner is a political personality, his victimization for political reasons, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can not be ruled out altogether. His mere impli- cation in some criminal cases without any allegation of misuse of the fire-arms or without any allegation of breach of the terms and conditions of licences, is not sufficient for cancellation of his fire-arm licences by the impugned memo, Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi vs Government of Bangladesh, 489

Sections 19A and 19(f) It is now settled that a public servant while discharging public duty seizes any contraband goods or article from a person, it will be presumed that he has acted in accordance with law. It is a presumption of fact. If the recovery and seizure are made in accordance with law, it is difficult to disbelieve the evidence of the seizing officer unless inherent infirmities are revealed in course of cross-examination. The onus lies upon the accused to show that no such arm was recovered from his possession. State vs Md Ali Reza (Criminal) 71 DLR (AD) 332

Section 19A-The arms and ammu- nition which have been manufactured for the army supply cannot be possessed by the accused or any other ordinary persons. This creates doubt in the mind how a pistol which is manufactured for army supply only can be possessed by the accused. The accused has been in jail custody for more than one year five moths. The trial has not been commenced as yet. The appellant is granted bail to the satisfaction of the Special Tribunal. Moshiur Rahman Bhuiyan @ Babu vs State, 69 DLR 202

Section 19A and 19(f)-Arms and ammunitions were recovered as per admission and also at the showing of accused-petitioner from a place which is very near to his dwelling house. The accused-petitioner did not give any explanation as to his knowledge about these concealed arms and ammunitions or as to how these arms and ammunitions came there. The Courts below rightly held that these arms and ammunitions were recovered from the possession of 4 accused-petitioner. Nasir Uddin vs State. 64 DLR (AD) 1

Sections 19A and 19(f) There are is no previous record of commission of any offence by the petitioner and therefore the minimum sentence may be imposed on him. Nasir Mia (Md) vs State, 801

Sections 19A & 19(1)-Admittedly the arms were recovered from a public place i.e. on the roof of a photostat shop and owner of the shop is one Zakir Hossain who neither made an accused nor a witness in the case and this shop situated at Nilkhet "Tempu Stand' which is a open and public place. Nurul Islam (Md) vs State, 64 DLR 268 Section 19(a) & (1)- 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 ammuni- tion 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(1)- 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) & (1)- 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 pos- session 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(1)- Recovery of arms-culpa- bility-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(1). Abul Hashem Master vs State 44 DLR 159. Section 19(1)-"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 57 DLR 158. Section 19A-The place of recovery being a public place it can not be said that the appellant was in exclusive possession of that place. That being so appellant can not 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. Section 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 cannot be held liable under section 19A of the Arms Act. Abdus Sattarvs State 62 DLR 298 Section 19A(1)- 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. 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 can- not be ruled out, he cannot be held guilty of offence under the Act. Talebur Rahman alias 3 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 indepen- dent 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 contem- plated by this clause, is actual and physical pos- session 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.

Sections 19A & 19(1)-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 circumstances to show that he had exclusive possession over the spot or that none else has excess to it, cannot make him liable for conviction. Nurul Islam vs State, 64 DLR 268

S. 19A and 19O-Taking into consideration of the FIR and the seizure list as to the recovery of arms and the evidence of P.W4 clearly show that the revolver and other article were not recovered from the exclusive control and possession of the appellant. There is a departure in the testimony of PW.4 from the version of the FIR which casts a shadow of doubt over the place and manner of recovery of arms and ammunitions. The seizure list witnesses No. I and 2 did not support the prosecution case when the other PWs. Did not corroborate one another, the impugned judgment and order is set aside.  Jabed Ali@ Asai Jabed@Mawra Jabed Vs. The State, 2LNJ (2013)-HCD-399.

S.19A and 19O-When the FIR named and seizure list witnesses do not support the prosecution story of recovery of arms, it is unsafe to base conviction on the evidence of police personnel. Kazi Nasir Uddin Babul Vs. State, 2 LN (2013)-HCD-120.

S. 19A-Whoever commits an offence under clause (a), (c), (e) or () of section 19 shall, if the offence is committed in respect of a pistol, revolver, rifle, shot gun or other fire-arm be punished with transportation for life or any shorter term which may extend be punished to fourteen years, or with fine. This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal allowing the appeal, acquitting the convict-appellant-respondent from the charge levelled against him and setting aside the judgment and order of  conviction passed by the Judge, Special Tribunal No. 6, Comilla. Appellate Division found from the materials on record that the accused had been in custody since one and half years prior to the recovery of the Arms and also note from the evidence on record that the polythene bag which contained the arms was recovered from a depth of only 9 inches is soft earth from place outside the house of the accused respondent. Although the place of recovery was within the homestead of the respondent, there is nothing to suggest that the place was not open to the public and such a large arsenal of arms would be kept at a depth of only 9 inches under soft soil and outside the house, and which could be dug up by the bare hand. Consequently, the petition is dismissed in absence of any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court Division.  State Vs. Md. Kamal Udddin alias Pichchi Kamal, 18 MLR (2013)-AD-61.

S. 19A and 19(9)-lt appears that in this case the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charges against this accused-petitioner and the other accused and the trial court, on consideration of those evidence rightly found this accused-petitioner and another accused Liakat Ali guilty of the charges under sections 19A and 19O of the Arms Act. From the submission of the learned  advocate of this accused-petitioner and also from this criminal petition for leave to appeal it appears that the High Court Division, in another appeal filed by the co-accused Liakat Ali against the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence upheld the conviction of the co-accused Liakat Ali though reduced his sentence only from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, Abdul Latif Vs. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Criminal, 10 ADC (2013)-Page 267, s. 190 & 19A-Suspicion or doubt however strong it might be cannot take place of evidence or there be slightest doubt as to the involvement of the accused in the crime, he cannot be convicted. Kazi Nasir Uddin Babul Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-174.

S. 19A and 19O-None of public witnesses either the seizure list witnesses or the men whose name find place in the FIR as witnesses supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of incriminating articles from the control and possession of the accused. Hasanul Istam Hanif Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-237

S. 19A-The Penal Code, Section 395 and 397-The High Court Division further found that P.W.4 proved the seizure list and his signature thereon. He also identified the country made pipe gun marked as material exhibit-1. Taking into consideration, the evidence of P.W.I Sekendar and P.W.2 Abdur Rouf, the local  witnesses in whose presence the country made pipe gun was recovered, the High Court Division found that both of them proved the seizure list marked as exhibit- 1 and P.Ws. 1 and 2 also identified their signatures on the seizure list marked as exhibit-1(ka) and 2 (kha) respectively. The High Court Division, however, noticed that both P.Ws.1 and 2 indirectly wanted to say that they did not see the actual occurrence of seizure of country made pipe gun from the house of the petitioner but that both of them proved the seizure list and admitted their respective signatures on it, which proved recovery of arms from the house of the accused. The High Court Division also noted that P.Ws I and 2 did not have the courage to tell the whole truth but that they admitted putting signatures on the seizure list, which indirectly proved the genuineness of the case...(14). Soharaf Uddin @ Shorab Vs. The State, 10 ADC (2013)-Page 696.

S19A and 19(0-To constitute an offence under section 19A and 19O of the Act possession and control, that is', conscious possession and actual control is required. Kamal Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-145.

 

Arms Act, 1878

Section

19A- Whether on the admitted facts the High Court Division is justified in maintaining the appellant's conviction under section 19A of the Arms Act- The Appellate Division held that whatever allegations made, in the FIR and the statements made by P.Ws.1-4 are the result of the investigation and therefore, those statements are hit by section 162 of the Code. The appellant was not an accused on 13.12.2004 and the recovery of fire arm as per his statement is a doubtful story to believe on. After recovery of the fire arm, the police officer in course of investigation found that the appellant planted the fire arm in the hayrick of Abdul Hoque. This statement is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court Division has totally misconstrued section 27 of the Evidence Act and illegally held that the recovery of the fire arm was on the basis of the statement made by the appellant with a sketch map 'pointing to an arm which is sufficient to have a knowledge, possession and control by himself and nobody else, even not Abdul Hoque'. This conclusion arrived at is based on misconception of law. There is no legal evidence to prove the recovery of he firearm from the exclusive control or knowledge of the appellant.......Md. Tofajjal Hussain =VS= The State, [1 LM (AD) 483]

Arms Act, 1878

Section 19(f)- Seizure list witnesses were not examined as such alleged recovery of seized ammunitions from the possession of the accused-appellant not proved- The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division pointed out that the person-who prepared the seizure list was not examined before the court although he was cited as a witness in the charge sheet and that both the seizure list witnesses were declared hostile, the place wherefrom the seized ammunitions were allegedly recovered was a shop in public place located besides the road and was accessible to the public at large and that in that situation it could not be said that the accused-appellants had exclusive control and possession over the place of occurrence. The High Court Division commented also that in that circumstances the possibility of false implication by business rival, as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, could not be brushed aside...... The State =VS Asif Khan Riyad & another, [1 LM (AD) 534]

Arms Act, 1878

Sections 19A/19(f) Recovery of the arms consequent upon confession made by the accused-petitioner and which he himself brought out of his straw store located within his homestead After consideration of the evidence and materials on record the Special Tribunal No.1, Narail by its judgement and order dated 14.06.2011 convicted the accused under sections 19(f)/19A of the Arms Act sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 19A and 7(seven) years for the offence under section 19(f) of the Arms Act.

No appeal was preferred against the judgement and order of the trial Court. However, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2011, the convict-petitioner preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6610 of 2012 under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained Rule, which upon hearing was discharged.

We are of the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of the convict-petitioner imposed for the offence under section 19A of the Arms Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Any period that the convict- petitioner suffered in custody during the course of the trial shall be deducted from the period of his sentence....Abdur Rab Munshi -VS- The State, [6 LM (AD) 95]

Section 19(a), (f)

seizure list witnesses did not support the prosecution case in respect of seizure of the incriminating articles from the possession of the convict ap- pellant Muhammad Faridul Mollah.

The High Court Division further held that the investigating officer of this case also did not prepare or sign the seizure list of the incriminating articles. The High Court Division concluded that the seizure list alleged to have been prepared by the B.D.R. personnel in respect of the seized articles is no seizure list in the eye of law and accordingly allowed the appeal. The State vs. Muhammad Faridul Mollah (M.M. Ruhul Amin J) (Criminal) 6 ADC 807

Section 19A (f)

Admittedly, trial Court relied on the evidence of police personnel, Pw.2, in- formant, S. I., Md. Sirajul Islam, Pw.3, S. I., Md. Azahar Hossain and P.W.4, Constable Md. Asraf Ali, who deposed that they caught the convict-petitioner and others red handed with 38 bore re- volver and 3 rounds of live cartridges for which they could not show any li- cense. Arif Hossain @ Shuvro vs. The State (Md. Abdul Aziz J) (Criminal) 6 ADC 895

Section 19(a) and (F)

Rejecting the prayer for bail of the ac- cused-respondents arising out of Kafrul Police Station Case No.26 dated 17.03.2003 under Section 19A and 19F    

of the Arms Act, 1878. The State vs. Masum and others (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Criminal) 7 ADC 882

Section 19A and 19(f)

Affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19A and 19(f) of the Arms Act.....(1) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and also to pay a fine of Tk.2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 (six) months. On appeal, the High Court Division, affirmed the convic- tion and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Md. Khayruddin vs. The State (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J) (Criminal) 7 ADC 1018

Sections 19A and 19(f)

All the witnesses in a chorus corrobo- rated the prosecution case that the arms were recovered as per showing of the two confessing accused and the confessional statements corroborated other materials on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners failed to repel the findings arrived at by the High Court Division. The contentions raised by the learned counsel merit no consideration. Kazi Kamrul vs. The State (S.K. Sinha J) (Criminal) 8 ADC 529

Sections 19A and 19(f)

It appears that in this case the prosecu- tion adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charges against this accused- petitioner and the other accused and the trial court, on consideration of those evidence rightly found this ac- cused-petitioner and another accused Liakat Ali guilty of the charges under sections 19A and 19(f) of the Arms Act. From the submission of the learned advocate of this accused-petitioner and also from this criminal peti- tion for leave to appeal it appears that the High Court Division, in another ap- peal filed by the co-accused Liakat Ali against the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence upheld the conviction of the co-accused Liakat Ali though reduced his sentence only from imprisonment for life to rigorous im- prisonment for 10 years. Abdul Latif vs. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Criminal) 10 ADC 267 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. 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.

Cancellation of licence

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 vs Bangladesh 50 DLR 591.

Section 26 of the Arms Act provides that the Government may at any time order or cause to be seized any arms ammunition or military stores in the possession of any person, notwithstanding that such person is li- censed to possess the same and may detain the same for such time as it thinks necessary for the public safety. Major (Rtd.) M Asaduzzaman Vs. The District Magistrate, Jessore& others, 19BLD (HCD) 404