Man acquitted in arms case act after prosecution evidence falls apart in Maharashtra

Time of India

21-05-2025

Representative image
MUMBAI: In a setback to the city crime branch, a local court acquitted a man arrested with a seizure of high-profile 16 country-made weapons possession case, citing procedural lapses and significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence.
The MRA Shaikh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, last week acquitted Manohar Jawahar Gupta (44), a resident of Kandivali who was caught with 16 country-made weapons in 2012. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove Gupta's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case stemmed from a February 2011 incident in which Gupta was arrested near Bhandup Railway Station. Acting on a tip-off, unit 7 of the Crime Branch team intercepted Gupta and allegedly found 16 country-made pistols ('Deshi Kattas') and 10 cartridges in his possession.
The APP submitted that the prosecution examined a total of six witnesses and claimed to have proved that at the time of the incident, a promulgation order was in existence. Defence advocate Aftab Qureshi argued that there were several contradictions and omissions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution did not possess a valid sanction order to prosecute, and the benefit of the doubt may be given.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed!
IC Markets
Start Now
Undo
However, the court noted discrepancies in the officers' testimonies. Head Constable Ravindra Bhalerao (PW1) testified that the seizure occurred at the scene, while another officer claimed it happened at the police office. The colour of the bag carried by the accused was inconsistently described—black by some, blue in official documents. Furthermore, conflicting accounts emerged about who received the tip-off: PI Vinayak Vast or Sr.
PI Sunil Kavalekar.
A key issue in the acquittal was the invalidity of the sanction order required under Section 39 of the Arms Act. Deputy Commissioner of Police Sheela Sail admitted during cross-examination that she did not physically inspect the seized weapons or question officers involved in the seizure before granting the sanction. The court held that mere reliance on documents, without physical verification or thorough application of mind, rendered the sanction legally defective.
'The protection provided under Section 39 of the Arms Act is not a formality—it is a safeguard,' the court stated, adding that prosecution without a valid sanction is unsustainable.
Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a prohibitory order under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act at the time of the incident (Exh.47). The court emphasised that a valid promulgation order was essential to support that charge.
In light of the lapses—invalid sanction, unproven prohibitory order, and contradictions in witness testimonies—the magistrate ruled that the prosecution failed to establish its case.