1. A. M. SAYEM, J.-This Rule was obtained by Md. Shahjahan Mia. Upon a finding that he had unauthorisedly in his possession or under his control a rifle on the 19th March a 967 in contravention of section 14 of the Arms Act (XI of 1878), the Assistant Sessions Judge of Pabna convicted-him under clause (f) of section 19 of the said Act (which provides a sentence of imprisonment extending to a period of 3 years only, or of fine or both for offences under each of the clauses of the section). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge imposed on him an enhanced sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, purported to have been passed under section 19-A thereof. His appeal "from the order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Pabna.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows. On the. 16th March 1967 there was a widespread disturbance in Pabna town. Arms shop, of the town, including Messrs Syed Arms Store, were raided and fire-arms were looted. While in search of fire-arms looted during the disturbance, a police party led by Sub-Inspector Matiar Rahman (P. W. 1) of Pabna P. S. Went to Bharera in the suburb of Pabna town and arrested the petitioner at about noon on the 19th March 1967. The petitioner, while, thus in custody, took the police party to the river Padma. In pursuance of a statement made by him that he had kept a rifle in the bed of the Padma and upon his pointing out a spot in the river under waist deep water covered with water hyacinth and weeds, P. W. 2 Zakir Hossain recovered a rifle (Exh. 1), bearing No. J. C. 35644, tied to a brick (Exh. 2).
3. It was not disputed at the trial that the above rifle belonged to P. W. 12 Amirul Islam, and that it was covered by licence No. 1/2638, Exh. 6 (b), issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Pabna, which was renewed up to the end of 1967. It was not disputed also that some time before the disturbance the said rifle was kept by P. W. 12 in safe custody with Messrs Syed Arms Store against a receipt (Exh. R).
4. The defence case was that the petitioner had nothing to do with the rifle in question, and that it was recovered neither in pursuance of any statement made by him nor on his pointing out the spot from where the rifle was recovered. The defence case further was that the rifle in question might have been planted in the river by Sub-Inspector Matiar Rahman himself and that since the petitioner had complained against his uncle-in-law named Abu Dayan, a ration dealer, for supplying impure food materials, the petitioner was falsely entangled in the case by the said Sub-- Inspector of Police. It was also suggested by the defence that the rifle might have been recovered in pursuance of a confession made by another person arrested by Sub-Inspector Matiar Rahman.
5. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, including witnesses to the recovery of the rifle and also an Arms Expert (P. W. 5) who proved that the rifle was in serviceable condition.
6. Apart from the police officers, the witnesses on the point of recovery of the rifle are P. W. 2 Zakir Hossain, P. W. 3 Dr. Abdul Mannan, P. W. 4 Monoranjan Ghose, P. W. 6 Kazi Enamul Huq and P. W. 9 Shamsul Alam. The defence did not lead any evidence.
7. The above-mentioned prosecution witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 stated that while in the custody of the police, the petitioner made a statement to the effect that he had kept a rifle in the bed of the river and that he also pointed out a spot in the river bed from where P. W. 2 Zakir Hossain recovered the rifle (Exh. 1) which was tied to a brick (Exh. 2). According to these witnesses, there was waist deep water at the said spot, which was covered by water hyacinth and weeds. It is upon such evidence that the Courts below recorded concurrent findings that the rifle, which belonged to P. W.
8. 12 Amirul Islam and had earlier been kept in safe custody with Messrs Syed Arms Store (one of the looted arms shops) was in the petitioner's unauthorised possession or control in terms of section 14 of the Arms Act, and further that this fact was discovered in consequence of information received from the petitioner while he was in police custody.
9. There can be no doubt that the petitioner's statement that he kept the rifle at a place pointed out by him is admissible in evidence, since it led to the discovery of the fact that the rifle was under the control or in the possession of the petitioner. The statement thus falls squarely within the ambit of section 27 of the Evidence Act which provides that so much of an information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, maybe proved as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in the custody of a police officer. The A concurrent findings of the Courts below that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession or control of the rifle is thus well founded in the evidence. There can be no interference therefore, with the petitioner's conviction under clause (f) of section 19 on the Arms Act.
10. There remains, however, the question of sentence. As already noticed, the learned Assistant Sessions. Judge inflicted, on the petitioner an enhanced sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, purporting to lave done so under section 19--A of the Arms Act. This section was inserted its the Arms Act by Bengal Criminal Law (Arms and Explosives) Act, 1932 (Act XXI of 1932) which also added a proviso to section 20 in the Arms Act, besides making some amendments in the Explosive Substance, Act, 1908. Section 19-A of the Arms Act, as inserted by Bengal Act XXI of 1932 ran as follows .- "19-A Notwithstanding anything contained in section 19, whoever commits an offence under clause
(c) or clause (e) or clause (f) of section 19 shall, if the offence is committed in respect of a pistol, revolver, rifle or shot-gun be punished with transportation for life or any shorter term, or with imprison--ment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, or with fine."
11. It is worth mentioning that the portion of the above-quoted section 19-A which has been underlined by us was later substituted by the words, brackets and letters "under clause (a), (c), (e) or (f)" by section 3 of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1934 (Bengal Act VII of 1934) which also inserted section 20-A in the Arms Act and section 5-B in the Explosive Substances Act of 1908, besides amending or adding certain provisions to some other Acts.
12. The learned Advocates on both sides agreed that section 19-A of the Arms Act was not available against the petitioner as the section was not on the Statute Book since some time before the petitioner was found in unauthorised control or possession of the rifle in question. It was pointed out that East Pakistan Repealing and Amending Ordinance, 1966 (Ordinance No. XIII of 1966) which was published in the official Gazette on the 20th December 1966, amended certain enactments and repealed certain others, in whole or in part. It appears that the Bengal Criminal Law (Arms and Explosives) Act, 1932 (Act XXI of 1932) by, which section 19-A was inserted in the Arms Act was one of those enactments that were repealed in whole by this Ordinance. The Ordinance was approved by the East Pakistan Assembly on the 27th January 1957 in pursuance of clause (3) of Article 79 of the Constitution of, 1962. See Notification No., 75-L dated the 31st January 1967, printed at page 121 of the Chapter of PLD 1967 containing East Pakistan Statutes.
13. The petitioner having been convicted for an offence under clause (f) of section 19 of the Arms Act committed in March 1967 and section 19-A of the Arms Act having ceased to be on the Statute Book since the 20th December 1966, the learned Advocate for the State very frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be sentenced to imprisonment for more than 3 years as provided in section 19 of the Arms Act. It is regrettable that Ordinance XIII of 1966 was not brought to the notice of the Courts below.
14. The petitioner is a young man and is admittedly a college student. It is unfortunate that a college student got himself involved in such a case as this. Be that as it may, the enhanced sentence imposed on the petitioner must be set aside. ' We think that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years will meet the ends of justice.
15. The Rule is accordingly discharged. The conviction of the petitioner under section 49 (f) is maintained. The sentence of 4 years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is, however, set aside as being illegal, and instead he is sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.
16. AHSANUDDIN CHOUDHURY, J.-I agree.