Imam and Chapman, JJ.
1. This was a Rule on the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act should not be set aside.
2. The facts of this case are these. The petitioner was carrying a gun on behalf of his master with the license to the Magistrate for the purpose of a renewal of the license, and the authorities prosecuted him for possessing a gun in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The case for the prosecution is not that the petitioner possessed the gun with the object of using it, nor is it alleged that he used it at all. In fact, looking at the case, we find it admitted that the object of the petitioner was merely to carry the gun to the Magistrate. In these circumstances, we do not see how the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act can be upheld. The cases of Queen-Empress v. Tota Ram (1894) I.L.R. 16 All. 276 and Prabhat Chandra Chowdhry v. Emperor (1907) I.L.R. 35 Calc. 219 are sufficient authority in favour of the petitioner.
3. We, therefore, make this Rule absolute, and set aside the conviction. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.