Skip to content


In Re: Alagathorai Padayachi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1947)1MLJ200
AppellantIn Re: Alagathorai Padayachi
Excerpt:
- - the first is that he had applied for renewal in time, the second is that he in good faith thought that he was lawfully entitled to keep the weapon for a month even though no renewed license was received;.....appear that the petitioner had applied before that date for the renewal of the license; but the renewed license was not received until the 5th february, 1946. usually a month's period of grace is allowed within which the license-holder may keep the weapon though the renewed license was not received. the petitioner's case is that he took advantage of the period of grace and kept the weapon in his possession without depositing it as required under the arms act. he fell ill on the 21st january, 1946 and recovered on the 17th february, but in the meantime, on the 5th february, the license had been renewed. the question to be considered is whether in these circumstances an offence under section 19(i) of the indian arms act has been committed. the period of grace is not intended to extend.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Yahya Ali, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 19(i) of the Indian Arms Act for failing to deposit a gun under the provisions of the said Act. The license expired on the 31st December, 1945 and it would appear that the petitioner had applied before that date for the renewal of the license; but the renewed license was not received until the 5th February, 1946. Usually a month's period of grace is allowed within which the license-holder may keep the weapon though the renewed license was not received. The petitioner's case is that he took advantage of the period of grace and kept the weapon in his possession without depositing it as required under the Arms Act. He fell ill on the 21st January, 1946 and recovered on the 17th February, but in the meantime, on the 5th February, the license had been renewed. The question to be considered is whether in these circumstances an offence under Section 19(i) of the Indian Arms Act has been committed. The period of grace is not intended to extend the period of the license, or, in any manner, to limit the scope of Section 16 of the Indian Arms Act. The weapon which is not covered by the license has to be deposited as soon as the license expires; In this case it was liable to be renewed on 1st January, 1946, but the authorities may refrain from taking any action for such period as they may fix according to their own regulations. But that is not a statutory period and it is not open to the holder of the weapon either to claim it as a matter of right or to state that he is not bound to deposit the weapon after the expiry of the period of license. Technically, therefore, an offence under Section 19(i) must be held to have been committed in this case. But the circumstances show that the petitioner was deterred from fulfilling the requirements of the Arms Act in the matter of the deposit of the weapon, whose license had expired, on account of three considerations. The first is that he had applied for renewal in time, the second is that he in good faith thought that he was lawfully entitled to keep the weapon for a month even though no renewed license was received; and thirdly that he fell ill within that period and ultimately the lieense was received before he recovered from his illness. Having regard to those considerations the sentence has to be very nominal. The fine is reduced to Rs. 5 in default to one week's simple imprisonment. The excess fine will be refunded.


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