Imamuddin Mian vs Emperor

Rowland, J.—The petitioner has been convicted u/s 19(e) and (f), Arms Act, 1878, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, the conviction and sentence being affirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal.

It was alleged that on 15th March 1939 he was seen on a. road cycling with a muzzle loading gun tied to the cycle. His father has a license for a breach loading gun, but not for a muzzle loader and the particular gun recovered by the police appears to be an unlicensed weapon. There was an affray on that day and after it three cycles were found left behind at the place of occurrence and also-this muzzle loading gun and a bundle which on being opened was found to contain ammunition. Some of the witnesses have said that the accused had both a gun and a bundle on the cycle which he was riding and the prosecution appears to have been instituted in respect of going armed and possessing both the gun and the ammunition ; but the trying Magistrate found that the contents of the bundle, if any, carried by the accused on the cycle, were not proved and that it was not proved that the bundle found at the place was the same bundle that was being carried by the accused on the cycle. Although there is not evidence to support a charge in respect of possession of the ammunition contained in the bundle, he however convicted in respect of the gun.

In revision it is pointed out that possession of arms which is punishable u/s l& (f), Arms Act, is an offence for which a prosecution can only be instituted after sanction is obtained from the District Magistrate and there is no such sanction on the record. The absence of sanction is referred to in the application to this Court and the trying Magistrate and District Magistrate have reported that there is nothing to add to what has been stated in the judgments of the lower and appellate Courts. If there was any sanction granted it ought to have been proved by the prosecution and made an exhibit before the Magistrate proceeded to hear evidence in the case; failing that it should at any rate have been mentioned in the explanation submitted to this Court with reference to the application in revision.

I shall therefore take it that there is no sanction as required by Section 29, Arms Act, to the commencement of a prosecution for an offence u/s 19(f). The petitioner there, fore is not liable to be convicted for the offence of possessing arms or ammunition land so far as the conviction refers to Section 19(f), Arms Act, it cannot be supported.

But the trial Court convicted under both Clause (e) and (f) of Section 19. The offence punish, able under Clause (e), namely that of going armed, is one for the prosecution of which no sanction is necessary. It has been suggested in this revision that to carry a weapon not in the hand but tied to the cycle in the manner of a piece of luggage merely amounts to being in possession of the weapon and not to going armed and the judgments of the Courts below are expressed rather as though the substantial point was possession and not going armed. Exactly where the line is to be drawn between possession of a weapon and going armed with it may be in some cases a matter of difficulty, ,and I do not wish to lay down any general proposition but I think the Courts below are entitled to regard the act of the accused as amounting to going armed within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 19, and although the finding might with advantage have been stated more precisely and explicitly, with reference to that clause, the acceptance of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is a finding of fact sufficient to support the conviction under Clause (e) which has been recorded. That being so, the conviction u/s 19(e) must be affirmed, while that u/s 19(f) is set aside. The sentence does not seem to me to be excessive, and is maintained.