NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JENKINS in his communication in the Court room The Lawyer as an Educator (Banker LJ 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 Magistrate under Section 25 or 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 met with no success. His appeal failed. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) WHAT is to be noticed is, and it is this which is most important. that it speaks nowhere of a Kirpan and it needs no discerning eyes to see that a Kirpan is as distinguishable from a knife as cheese is from chalk. And as the prosecution relies on a Notification relating to knives and not a Kirpan, the entire edifice raised by the prosecution crumbles to the ground I have only to pronounce an oraison funebre.