Skip to content


Afak Haider Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1951CriLJ1522
AppellantAfak Haider
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer..........cr. p. 0. was no bar. the relevant facts are that the accused was prosecuted for an attempt to commit suicide with a revolver. that case was decided & the accused convicted. the present prosecution is under the-arms act for unlawful possession of the said revolver. mr. chobe, the learned advocate for the accused contends that if the attempt to commit suicide was with the same revolver about which the present offence has been launched it will be barred under section 403, indian cr. p.c. cited above. we do not agree with this contention. the test to determine whether the said section would be a bar or not is to see whether the subsequent offence is the same as the previous offence. it is clear that the possession of the revolver without a licence is a distinct offence in itself under.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Chief City Magistrate holding that the case under the Arms Act could be tried & that 8 403 Sub-B (4), Indian Cr P.C., corresponding to Section 204, Hyderabad Cr. P. 0. was no bar. The relevant facts are that the accused was prosecuted for an attempt to commit suicide with a revolver. That case was decided & the accused convicted. The present prosecution is under the-Arms Act for unlawful possession of the said revolver. Mr. Chobe, the learned advocate for the accused contends that if the attempt to commit suicide was with the same revolver about which the present offence has been launched it will be barred under Section 403, Indian Cr. P.C. cited above. We do not agree with this contention. The test to determine whether the said section would be a bar or not is to see whether the subsequent offence is the same as the previous offence. It is clear that the possession of the revolver without a licence is a distinct offence in itself under the Arms Act- It hag nothing to do with the attempt to commit suicide which is a separate offence under the Penal Code. In Emperor v. Munnoo A. I. B. (20) 198a Oudh 470, it was held that conviction in respect of possession of stolen revolver under Sections 411 & 414, Penal Code, is no bar to conviction under Section 19(f), Arms..This revision petition therefore fails & is dismissed.


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