Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Koya Hansji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Application for Revision No. 278 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR964; 17Ind.Cas.796
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKoya Hansji
Excerpt:
indian arms act (xi of 1878), section 19-arms-license-possession of gun-servant fetching a gun left by his master.;m, who was licensed to keep a gun, and his servant left broach and went to a neighbouring village. they returned forgetting the gun behind them. m sent his servant to fetch the gun and the latter while so returning with it was arrested by the police at broach for going armed in contravention of the provisions of section 13 of the indian arms act. the servant was convicted and sentenced under section 19(e) of the act :-;acquitting the servant, that the mere temporary possession without a license of arms for purposes other than their use as such was not an offence within the meaning of section 19 of the indian arms act. ;emperor v. harpal rai (1902) i. l. r. 24 all. 454..........to broach leaving his gun behind him. he, therefore, sent the accused to bring back his gun from dhantaria to broach, and the accused brought it back. on his way through the city of broach he was arrested by the police, and has been convicted under section 19(e) of the arms act of going armed in contravention of the provisions of section 13. section 13 provides that no person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby. it is unfortunate in this case that the prosecution have not put in the licence granted to mahomedbhai, for it may be that the particular terms of that document would be conclusive of the question before us; but in the absence of any assistance in this direction, we think that the established circumstances do.....
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. The facts in this case are these : The applicant is the servant of one Mahomedbhai Kasambhai, an inhabitant of Broach, who has a license to keep a gun. Mahomedbhai and the applicant left Broach and went to a neighbouring village called Dhantaria. From there Mahomedbhai returned to Broach leaving his gun behind him. He, therefore, sent the accused to bring back his gun from Dhantaria to Broach, and the accused brought it back. On his way through the city of Broach he was arrested by the police, and has been convicted under Section 19(e) of the Arms Act of going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13. Section 13 provides that no person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby. It is unfortunate in this case that the prosecution have not put in the licence granted to Mahomedbhai, for it may be that the particular terms of that document would be conclusive of the question before us; but in the absence of any assistance in this direction, we think that the established circumstances do not suffice to prove the applicant's guilt under Section 19(e) of the Arms Act. We agree with the Allahabad High Court's decision in Emperor v. Harpal Rai ILR (1902) All. 454 where it was said, following previous decisions of that Court, that the mere temporary possession, without a licence, of arms for purposes other than their use as such is not an offence within the meaning of Section 19 of the Arms Act: See also In the matter of Kali Nath Singh (1899) 3 C.W.N. 394. We must, therefore, reverse the conviction in this case and direct that the applicant be acquitted and discharged. The fine, if paid, should be refunded.

2. The order of confiscation made under Section 24 of the Arms Act is also set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //