Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040004822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./10/2025 Gora Paku Son of Late Gora Pada, resident of Sengching Village, PO and PS Palin, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Romi colony Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Reken Ingo, Dani Rieyang,Kipa Yabi,Jumken Ete,Aruna Rai,S D Loda Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 28-03-2025 Heard Mr. R. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. By filing this application under sections 438/442 read with section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.03.2025, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Session Case No. 32/2024. This order pertains to the direction to conduct an inquiry regarding the issuance of Arms Licenses and to initiate action for their cancellation. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below: “On examination of case records, it is found that one Arms License bearing No. YCL/ARMS/2016, 1377 is issued on 28.06.2020 to one Dare Raju and another Arms License bearing No. KD/JUD/ARM/Duplicate-4/2019 is issued in the name of one Gora Togung on 04.07.2018 by the District Magistrate/Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Lower Subansiri. Whereas it is observed that said license holder are found KraDaadi, who resides at Itanagar and they are not residents of Lower Subansiri. Besides, it is observed that said licenses were issued inspite of issuance of blanket ban by the Home Ministry in issuance of Arms License in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is prima facie observed that above arms licenses were issued without following Arms Acts and Rules and the Notification of the State Government and the Arms so acquired is used for commission of present offence. It is also observed that Gora Togung who is license holder has failed to keep the arm and handed over the same to accused person without having license, who has committed present offence. Page No.# 3/6 In view of above, the Department of Home, Govt. of A.P., is directed to conduct an enquiry regarding said arms license and initiate action for cancellation of the same and any other necessary action under the law. Send a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Home Govt. of A.Ρ., Itanagar for information and necessary action. List the case on 04.06.25 for appearance of accused, for examination of PWs and for report regarding action taken by the Home Department, Itanagar.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the accused in connection with Sessions Case No. 32/2024; therefore, he has no objection so far as the framing of charges against the accused is concerned. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by the trial court's order directing the Home Department to conduct an inquiry regarding the issuance of Arms Licenses and to initiate action for their cancellation. The petitioner contends that, at the time of hearing on the question of charges, the learned trial court, while framing charges against the accused for offences under sections 457/307/506 of the IPC read with section 27(1) of the Arms Act, could not have passed an order directing the department to inquire about the issuance of Arms Licenses and to initiate action for their cancellation, as this is not connected with the criminal case. He further submits that by issuing such a direction to the Department of Home, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry regarding the Arms License granted to one Dare Raju and to initiate action for its cancellation, the learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, he prays for the setting aside or expunging of the said observation and direction from the order dated 11.03.2025. 4. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP, while conceding the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the order dated Page No.# 4/6 11.03.2025 is correct regarding the framing of charges against the accused for offences under sections 457/307/506 of the IPC read with section 27(1) of the Arms Act. However, after reading and explaining the charges to the accused, the learned trial court exceeded its jurisdiction while proceeding under sections 228 CrPC/251 of BNSS by making observations regarding the issuance of licenses by the Department to one Dare Raju, noting that there was a blanket ban by the Home Ministry on the issuance of Arms Licenses in the State of Arunachal Pradesh at that time. It further observed that the license holder failed to keep the arm and handed it over to the accused. Additionally, the order directed the Department of Home, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry regarding the issuance of the said Arms License and initiate its cancellation, as well as to take necessary action under the law. The learned trial court also directed the Home Department to report again on 04.06.2025 regarding the action taken on the above direction. Such a direction, according to the learned Additional PP, could not have been issued by the trial court while hearing the proceedings under sections 228 CrPC/251 of BNSS. 5. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties. 6. Upon consideration, it appears that the petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 32/2024. The case was fixed for hearing on the question of charges. Upon hearing the parties and finding prima facie material against the accused, charges were framed for offences under sections 457/307/506 of the IPC read with section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The charges were read over and explained, to which the accused person denied and claimed to stand trial. The petitioner as well as the respondent has no objection to this extent. However, it appears that the learned court subsequently directed the Home Department to conduct an inquiry regarding Page No.# 5/6 the Arms License issued to one Shri Dare Raju and to initiate action for its cancellation, along with any necessary action under the law. This observation and direction, which are not connected with the case before the trial court, were not warranted in the proceedings for hearing on the question of charges under sections 228 CrPC/251 of BNSS. Thus, it appears prima facie that the learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction while proceeding under the said provisions of law. Therefore, this warrantsinterference. 7. For the reasons stated above, the portion of the order dated 11.03.2025, quoted below, shall stand expunged from the order: “On examination of case records, it is found that one Arms License bearing No. YCL/ARMS/2016, 1377 is issued on 28.06.2020 to one Dare Raju and another Arms License bearing No. KD/JUD/ARM/Duplicate-4/2019 is issued in the name of one Gora Togung on 04.07.2018 by the District Magistrate/Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Lower Subansiri. Whereas it is observed that said license holder are found KraDaadi, who resides at Itanagar and they are not residents of Lower Subansiri. Besides, it is observed that said licenses were issued inspite of issuance of blanket ban by the Home Ministry in issuance of Arms License in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is prima facie observed that above arms licenses were issued without following Arms Acts and Rules and the Notification of the State Government and the Arms so acquired is used for commission of present offence. It is also observed that Gora Togung who is license holder has failed to keep the arm and handed over the same to accused person without having license, who has committed present offence. In view of above, the Department of Home, Govt. of A.P., is directed to conduct an enquiry regarding said arms license and initiate action for Page No.# 6/6 cancellation of the same and any other necessary action under the law. Send a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Home Govt. of A.Ρ., Itanagar for information and necessary action. List the case on 04.06.25 for appearance of accused, for examination of PWs and for report regarding action taken by the Home Department, Itanagar.” 8. The rest of the order shall remain intact, including the date of appearance of the accused on 04.06.2025. 9. With the above, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant