NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jenkins in his Communication in the Court- room =The Lawyer as an Educator (Banker. L J. 377 (1984) writes that an advocate is a teacher of sorts, and instructs the Judge as to what the underlying facts and circumstances are, so that an informed choice can be made. I have waited and waited today for these teachers of sorts and as none has turned up, I am exercising the other option-the option to roll up my sleeves and to dig into the case.

(2.) The case needs no big canvas. The petitioner was convicted by a Metropolitan Megistrate u/S. 25 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a Kirpan in contravention of a Notification which was placed on the record. Aggrieved, he knocked at the doors of the Additional Sessions Judge, but his appeal failed. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) It is the Notification which holds the key for it was on its basis that the prosecution was launched. And, what does it prohibit ? It prohibits acquisition, possession and earring of "spring-actuated knives, graridar knives, buttondar knives or other knives which open or close..."