Possession under the Arms Act may include handing firearms to an unlicensed repairer at an independent workshop.

Handing over licensed firearms to an unlicensed independent repairer at his own workshop can, at least prima facie, amount to delivery into another person's possession under the Arms Act. The Supreme Court treated possession as involving physical custody or effective control, together with consciousness and dominion, rather than a narrow legal abstraction. It also noted that, at the charge-framing stage, the Magistrate need only see whether the materials disclose grounds for presuming the offence. On the alleged facts, removal of the firearms from the licensed premises also prima facie attracted breach of licence conditions under Section 30.

---

---

Issues: Whether handing over licensed firearms to an unlicensed repairer at his independent workshop amounts to delivery of the firearms into the possession of another person within the meaning of Section 29(b) of the Arms Act, 1959; and whether the materials before the Magistrate disclosed a prima facie case for charges under Sections 29(b) and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Analysis: Possession is not confined to a narrow legal abstraction and, in the context of the Act, turns on whether the person concerned had physical custody or effective control over the weapon. The Court applied the settled principle that possession involves consciousness together with actual control or dominion, and that at the stage of framing charge the Magistrate is only to see whether the materials disclose grounds for presuming the commission of the offence, not to weigh the evidence finally. On the facts alleged, the firearms were handed over to an independent mechanic at his own workshop, outside the licensees' place of business, and there was no material showing the presence or supervision of the licensees at the time. Those facts were sufficient at the preliminary stage to indicate that the licensees had divested themselves, at least temporarily, of physical possession and effective control, and that the recipient had no authority to retain the arms for repair. The Court also held that removal of the firearms to a place other than the licensed premises prima facie attracted breach of the licence condition, making Section 30 applicable.

Conclusion: The giving of firearms to an unlicensed independent repairer could prima facie amount to delivery into his possession under Section 29(b), and the materials disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 29(b) and 30 against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The discharge orders were unsustainable, and the matter had to proceed with charges framed against the respondents for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In the context of the Arms Act, possession includes physical possession and effective control, and handing over firearms to an unlicensed person at an independent workshop may amount, at least prima facie, to delivery into that person's possession for the purpose of Sections 29(b) and 30.

---