GUNWANTILAL vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court held that possession of a firearm under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 requires both knowledge of possession and control over the weapon, even if not in actual physical possession. The Court clarified that a person can be charged with possession if they have control over the firearm, as illustrated by examples involving a house owner and a servant. The charge against the appellant was upheld, but the Court directed an amendment to the charge to reflect 'on or about 17-9-1966' instead of 'on or before'.