Ganga Prasad vs Emperor

Agarwala, J.—On the night of 21st October 1932, Ganga Prasad Sahu was arrested by the police in a maize field in possession of two loaded country made revolvers and fifteen live revolver cartridges. He was placed on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur on charges under Sections 19(e) and (f) and 20, Arms Act. The assessors found him not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge, disagreeing with their opinion, has convicted the appellant on all the charges, and sentenced him to three years'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 19, Clauses (e) and (f), and seven years'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 20, the sentences to run concurrently.

Mr. Verma, who appears for the appellant, does not contest the convictions u/s 19. He has contended that the circumstances do not indicate that the accused had an intention to conceal, from the persons specifically mentioned in Section 20 the offence which he was committing u/s 19(e) and (f). According to the prosecution the police had received information that Ganga Prasad Sahu and others contemplated the omission of a dacoity in the house of one Brijmohan Misir and it was in consequence of that information that they were able to make their plan and capture the appellant. A person proceeding to commit dacoity with arms in his possession would ordinarily carry them in his pocket or in his clothes without there being any express intention on his part to conceal them from public servants or railway employees or the servants of a public carrier, so that the mere fact that the weapon is not exposed to view does not necessarily indicate the intention mentioned in Section 20.

As was pointed out by Addison, J., in Chet Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Lah. 262, the question whether the circumstances justify the inference that the intention was such as is indicated in Section 20 must depend on the particular circumstances of each case.

In Harnam Singh v. Emperor AIR 1929, Lah. 576, where a person was carrying a spear under his clothes next to his akin and was charged u/s 20, Arms Act, it was held that the mere fact that he was carrying this in the manner stated was not sufficient to justify the inference that his intention was to conceal the weapon from the persons mentioned in Section 20. There are many cases on the same point, some on their own facts being decided one way and some the other.

They serve only to show that the application of the section must depend on the facts of each case. In the present instance, had it been shown that the accused had been travelling by railway or in a public conveyance this might have provided a ground for an inference that he had taken precautions to conceal the revolvers from railway employees or the employees of the public carrier.

Similarly had he on the night when he was arrested, had occasion to interview any public servant and had it been shown that at the time the revolvers were concealed under his clothes it might have been inferred that his intention was to conceal the weapons from such public servant; but when a person is about to proceed on a dacoity and he travels to the place not by railway or by a public vehicle, in my opinion it cannot be reasonably inferred that a weapon which is found in his pocket or in his clothes has been placed there with the express intention of concealing the possession of the weapon from any of the persons specified in Section 20.

In these circumstances the conviction u/s 20 must be set aside. The conviction and sentence u/s 19, Clauses (e) and (f) are confirmed.