Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Ramkishan of an offence under sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The accused is the proprietor of Grand Hotel, Jodhpur. One Mahendra Singh came and stayed at that Hotel. When he was leaving, he was short of money and could not pay the bill that he had run up at the Hotel. Consequently Mahendra Singh left his pistol with the accused, and executed a document, Ex.p-3 by which he pledged this pistol as a security for the sum of Rs. 300/7/- which he owed to the Grand Hotel. He agreed that the money would be paid within a fortnight together with interest. It was also agreed that if the money was not paid within the time-limit, the Hotel would have the right to recover the amount by selling the pistol. On the 23rd of March, 1952, the pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused by the police on the basis of some information received from Bombay. Thereafter, the accused was prosecuted under sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act. He admitted these facts, but his case was that he was not guilty within the meaning of that section.

3. Sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act provides of punishment of any person who has in his possession or under his control any arms, ammunition or military stores in contravention of the provisions of sec. 14 or sec. 15 which provide for licence. The contention of the applicant is that though he was in fact in possession of the pistol, in law that did not amount to possession within the meaning of sec. 19(f). Reliance in this connection has been placed on a number of authorities.

4. The first of these cases in Queen Empress vs. Tota Ram (1). In that case, a servant Nathu was carrying a gun of his master in order to have it repaired, and it was held that, in those circumstances, the servant was not guilty.

5. In Emperor vs. Harpal Rai (2), a gun had been given by the licensee to a friend for purposes of repairs. This friends father was taking the gun to a repairer for that purpose when he was caught. It was held that in those circumstances there was no offence under sec. 19(f). Learned counsel relies on an observation in this case, which is in these words—

"The essential of the offence is the going armed, that is, carrying a weapon with the intention of using it as a weapon when the necessity or opportunity arises.

We must say with respect to the learned Judge that all that sec. 19(1) requires is possession or control of the arm and there is no requirement in that section that the possession should be with the intention of using the weapon when the necessity or opportunity arises. We may add however that we agree with the view taken in these cases, namely that where a servant or a friend is in temporary possession of a licensees gun for a limited purpose, say repairs, he would not be guilty under sec. 19 (f) of the Arms Act for being in possession or control of the gun because in such circumstances the possession in law will be that of the licensee.

6. The next case on which reliance is placed is Choru Chandra Ghose vs,Emperor(3) That was also a case of a servant taking a gun on behalf of his master to a Magistrate for purposes of renewing the incense. It was held that in those circumstances no offence under sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act was committed. In this case also certain observations were made to the effect that the petitioner was not possessing the gun with the object of using it. With all respect we may say that the use to which the gun may or may not be put is entirely immaterial for purposes of an offence under sec. 19(f). The gun in this case was being carried by a servant, and in law the possession in the circumstances was that of the master.

7. Lastly reference was made to A. Malcolm vs. Emperor(4). In that case, it was said with respect to one of the accused, Malcolm, that the weapon was made over to him merely for the purposes of negotiating a sale, and therefore such possession was not unlawful in as much as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document