Skip to content


In Re: Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ1232
AppellantIn Re: Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar
Excerpt:
- .....sivalingam chettiar, accused-1 in sessions case no. 82 of 1972 on the file of the assistant sessions judge, ramanathapuram division at devakottai.2. the revision petitioner is stated to be dead now. since the revision petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine, the revision petition is disposed of on merits. the revision petitioner was tried along with the eleven others for rioting and other allied offences including attempt to commit murder and ultimately, the revision petitioner alone was convicted under section 27 of the arms act and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, by the assistant sessions judge, devakottai. on appeal, the learned additional sessions judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner. hence this revision petition has been filed.3. it.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar, accused-1 in Sessions Case No. 82 of 1972 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram Division at Devakottai.

2. The revision petitioner is stated to be dead now. Since the revision petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine, the revision petition is disposed of on merits. The revision petitioner was tried along with the eleven others for rioting and other allied offences including attempt to commit murder and ultimately, the revision petitioner alone was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner. Hence this revision petition has been filed.

3. It is strange that both the Courts below had fallen into a grave error in their approach in interpreting Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the Courts have found that the revision petitioner had not used the revolver to commit any offence. The revolver was not loaded. It is true that he was having a revolver. The revision petitioner had licence for the possession of the revolver. In this background, we have to consider whether the revision petitioner has committed an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The question is whether the revision petitioner was in possession of the revolver with intent to use the revolver for any unlawful purpose.

5. When a clear finding has been given that the revolver was not used at all for committing any offence when the revision petitioner was prosecuted and tried for the overt acts attributed to him, I am of the view that mere possession of a revolver which was not loaded at the time of the rioting, will not bring such person within the mischief of Section 27 of the Arms Act. On this view, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are quashed.

6. The revision petition is allowed. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to S. Ramanathan one of the sons of the revision petitioner. M. O. 1 revolver will be returned to Sundaram one of the sons of the revision petitioner who is noted to be holding a licence to possess revolver viz. Licence No. 8/171 M. T. valid to 31-12-1975.

7. M. O. 2 D. B. B. L. gun will be returned to S. Mohan, grandson of the petitioner who is said to be holding licence No. 33/3 M. T. S. valid up to 31-12-1974.


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