AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 177 wordsWe think there is no doubt that the revolver in the case is a fire-arm within the meaning of the Act. The question is not so much whether the
particular weapon is serviceable as a fire-arm, but whether it has lost its specific character and has so ceased to be a fire-arm. In referring to the
serviceable character of the arm we think the decision in The Queen v. Siddappa ILR Mad. 60 was not correct and that the proper test was lost
sight of. Whether in any particular case the instrument is a fire-arm or not, is a question of fact to be determined according to circumstances. We
answer the question in the affirmative.
This case again coming on for final disposal after the expression of the opinion of the Full Bench, the Court (Collins, C.J., and Benson, J.)
delivered the following judgment:
The ruling of the Full Bench renders it necessary to set aside the acquittal. We accordingly do this, and we restore the conviction and sentence
passed by the Joint Magistrate.