Skip to content


Chhotey Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All33; 69Ind.Cas.457
AppellantChhotey
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 27 - unlicensed arm in possession of servant--master, liability of. - .....holding that under section 27 of the indian penal code the pistol being in the possession of his servant, husaini, must be consider-ed to have bean in chhotey's possession. the learned sessions judge points oat that the magistrate hag apparently overlooked the important words in section 27, viz., that the possession of the servant must be on account of his master to make the master liable. i notice that, in his judgment, the magistrate rays ' the shop and its contents, whatever these were, ' were in husaini's possession on account of hip matter chhotey; and in bis explanation, he says: 'the pistol was found lying openly in the shop in what i gathered to be much the same way as the other articles in the. shop...so i regarded the pistol as part of the general property of the or. ' i have.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. The Kotwal of Cawnpore, having reason to suspect stolen properly to be in possession of Chhotey, searched his shop in the Bazar, in Cawnpore. Chhotey had been absent from Cawnpore for some days. Husaini, a servant of Chhotey, was in charge of the shop. The Kotwal found a pistol lying on the floor of the shop. Both Chhotey and Husaini, his servant, were tried for an offence under the Arms Act and were both, convicted by the Magistrate who sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each. They applied for revision to the Sessions Judge who upheld the conviction of Husain bat has referred the case of Chhotey to this Court with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence be. set aside. The Magistrate convicted Chhotey, holding that under Section 27 of the Indian Penal Code the pistol being in the possession of his servant, Husaini, must be consider-ed to have bean in Chhotey's possession. The learned Sessions Judge points oat that the Magistrate hag apparently overlooked the important words in Section 27, viz., that the possession of the servant must be on account of his master to make the master liable. I notice that, in his judgment, the Magistrate Rays ' the shop and its contents, whatever these were, ' were in Husaini's possession on account of hip matter Chhotey; and in bis explanation, he says: 'The pistol was found lying openly in the shop in what I gathered to be much the same way as the other articles in the. shop...so I regarded the pistol as part of the general property of the or. ' I have searched Chrough the record from end to end and I cannot-find any reference to what kind of shop this was or what sort of goods were sold in it. At any rate, there is nothing to show that a pistol was a sort of article that, one, could reasonably 'expect to be for sale, in the shop.. I, therefore agree with the learned Sucsesasiors Judge in holding that it (sic)jot proved that the possession by Husaini of this pistol was possession on account of Chhotey, I, therefore, accept the referense, set aside, the conviction and sentence and direst the, fine, if paid, to be refunded.


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