Skip to content


Charu Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Cal628(2),(1914)ILR41Cal11
AppellantCharu Chandra Ghose
RespondentEmperor
Cases Referred and Prabhat Chandra Chowdhry v. Emperor
Excerpt:
arms - possession of a gun by the servant of a licensee in order to take to a magistrate for renewal of the license without intention to use the same--arms act (xi of 1878), section 19(f). - .....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.
Judgment:

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.


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