In Re: Kali Nath Singh

The Petitioner has been convicted under sec. 19 (f) of the Arms Act of carrying two guns without a license. When called upon to account for possession of these guns, he said that one was held under a license in the name of Tarak Nath Bose, while the other was the property of his master Babu Sree Nath Dass who had been exempted from the operation of the Arms Act. Now, in regard to the first gun, the Magistrate points out that the license expired on the 31st December whereas the Petitioner was arrested in possession of this gun on the 4th January. But it appears that there was some difficulty in obtaining a renewal of licenses upon which the District Magistrate of 24-Pergunnahs, by an order shown to us, has extended the period in so far as he directed that, up to the end of January, no prosecution should be taken for such breaches of the Indian Arms Act. Probably this order was unknown to the Magistrate who dealt with this case because it was passed on the day of the arrest and the order convicting the Petitioner was passed two days later. However, it must be regarded as in favour of the Petitioner in respect of this gun.

In respect of the other gun, the Magistrate refuses to admit the excuse on the ground that the exemption on behalf of Babu Sree Nath Dass, the master of the Petitioner, docs not extend to his servant. It seems to us rather that it may apply to the possession of the gun, so long as it is the property of the licensce and the mere fact that it happened at the time to be carried by a servant does not make the servant liable for not having himself a license under the Act. We would refer to the case of the Queen-Empress v. Kishunwa I. L. R. 20 cal. 444 (1893) as a case in point. The conviction and sentence, as well as the order of confiscation must, therefore, be set aside; the fine, if paid, must be refunded and the guns restored on proper application being made to the Magistrate.