BJP MLA G Somashekara Reddy convicted under Arms Act, released on probation

An Special Court in Bengaluru recently convicted BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) G Somashekara Reddy under the Arms Act for not depositing his revolver in a police station after failing to renew its license. [State of Karnataka v. G Somashekara Reddy].However, the Court released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, noting that doing so would not have a bad impact on society..Special Judge Preeth J, based on a report by the Bellary District Probation Officer, gathered that there were no other criminal cases against the MLA and that he was involved in social work.The Court ruled that the offence committed was not grave compared to other offences under the Act. Considering the facts and background of Reddy as per the officer's report, it determined that he repented committing the offence."Moreover, the offence committed by the accused is not a grave offence as compared to other offences under the Arms Act. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and also the background of the accused as per the P.O Report and also, it appears that the accused has repented for the offence committed by him," the Court stated..The complaint against Reddy was filed by District Commissioner, Bellary, alleging that after his weapon's license expired in 2009, he unlawfully kept it in his possession for nearly two years. Hence, a case was registered against him under Section 25(1-B)(h) of Arms Act..Reddy's counsel argued that he voluntarily deposited the revolver in November 2011, after the by-elections for the State Legislative Council were declared. He also told the Court that he applied for renewal a week later, after which the concerned authority collected a sum of ₹360 from him to renew his license, and therefore by its conduct, condoned the delay.Explaining the delay in renewal, he cited work pressure and stated that he lost the license briefly when his house was being renovated..The Court, however, ruled,"This two fold defence is not at all appealable to the conscious of this court, because, both the limbs cannot sail together, it should have either been work pressure or lost and found theory."Further, it said that the acceptance of late fee by the authority will not mean that the accused could get away from the mandate under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Arms Act, ordering the deposit of the weapon to the nearest police station on expiry of license.Another defence of the accused was that the burden of intimating him for renewal of the license was on the complainant, but no notice was given to him.The Court underlined that the complaint was not filed for non-renewal, but was filed because the accused failed to deposit the revolver in a police station. It, therefore, convicted the MLA under Section 25(1-B)(h) of the Arms Act.He was released on probation for good conduct subject to certain conditions and was directed to appear before the Court quarterly to file his affidavit for non-violation of the conditions..[Read Judgment]