ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RYVES, J.
Chhotey - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 16-06-1922
JUDGMENT
Ryves, J. - The Kotwal of Cawnpore, having reason to suspect stolen properly to be in possession of Chhotey, searched his shop in the Bazar, in Cawnpore. Chhotey had been absent from Cawnpore for some days. Husaini, a servant of Chhotey, was in charge of the shop. The Kotwal found a pistol lying on the floor of the shop. Both Chhotey and Husaini, his servant, were tried for an offence under the Arms Act and were both, convicted by the Magistrate who sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each. They applied for revision to the Sessions Judge who upheld the conviction of Husain bat has referred the case of Chhotey to this Court with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence be. set aside. The Magistrate convicted Chhotey, holding that u/s 27 of the Indian Penal Code the pistol being in the possession of his servant, Husaini, must be consider-ed to have bean in Chhotey's possession. The learned Sessions Judge points oat that the Magistrate hag apparently overlooked the important words in Section 27, viz., that the possession of the servant must be on account of his master to make the master liable. I notice that, in his judgment, the Magistrate Rays " the shop and its contents, whatever these were, " were in Husaini's possession on account of hip matter Chhotey; and in his explanation, he says: "The pistol was found lying openly in the shop in what I gathered to be much the same way as the other articles in the. shop...so I regarded the pistol as part of the general property of the or. " I have searched Chrough the record from end to end and I cannot-find any reference to what kind of shop this was or what sort of goods were sold in it. At any rate, there is nothing to show that a pistol was a sort of article that, one, could reasonably "expect to be for sale, in the shop.. I, therefore agree with the learned Sucsesasiors Judge in holding that it (sic)jot proved that the possession by Husaini of this pistol was possession on account of Chhotey, I, therefore, accept the referense, set aside, the conviction and sentence and direst the, fine, if paid, to be refunded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.