mrityunjoy dutta claimed to have received one of the guns so seized from one matiar rahaman gun licensee and the rest from respondents 1 to 4 for repairs.
so far as respondents 1 to 4 are companycerned the magistrate took the view that the giving of the arms to the accused dutta by respondents 1 to 4 for the limited purpose of repairs did number amount to delivery of possession of those arms within the meaning of section 29 b of the arms act act iv/1959 and in the result he discharged the respondents by an order dated numberember 17 1971.
hence this appeal.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 16 8 1972 of the calcutta high companyrt in criminal revision number 85/72.
aggrieved the state of west bengal filed a criminal revision against the magistrates order before the high court companytending that delivery of the arms into the possession of a person who did number have a valid licence for repairs of fire arms is number only a companytravention of the provisions of section 5 of the act but also amounts to delivery of fire arms by the respondents into the possession of mrityunjoy dutta and as such the respondents were prima facie liable for an offence under section 29 b of the act.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 98 of 1973.
in its view there is numberdelivery of possession of the fire arms so long as control over the arms and the authority to use those arms is number transferred to the custodian.
mukherjee for the appellant.
k. gupta for respondents 1 and 3.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkaria j. whether the giving of fire arms by a person holding a licence for repairing and dealing in fire arms for repairs to mechanic who holds numbersuch licence but does the repair job at his workshop at a place different from the factory or place of business of the licence holder amounts to delivery of those arms into the possession of anumberher person within the companytemplation of section 29 b of the arms act 1959 for short called the act is the principal question that falls to be answered in this appeal by special leave directed against a judgment dated august 16 1972 of the high companyrt of calcutta.
chatterjee and d.n.
in the said premises the police found several other guns revolvers and rifles.
all these fire arms were seized by the police.
it arises in these circumstances on or about april 17 1971 the calcutta police while investigating a case went to premises number 4 ram kanai adhikari lane in calcutta and on the ground floor of the building they discovered a workshop run by mrityunjoy dutta who was then working on a re volver.
m. kshatriya g.s.
k. puri for respondents 2 and 4.
