KANHYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chamba recommending that the conviction of Kanhya for manufacturing and for being found in possession of arms without licence, and of Sahnu for being found in possession of arms without licence, and the sentences of fine imposed upon them by a learned first class Magistrate of Chamba be set aside.

(2.) It appears that on a search of the house of Kanhya, who is a black-smith by profession, two country-made guns and a country-made pistol were recovered. One of the guns belonged to Sahnu, who held a licence for the same but it had expired before the date of its recovery from Kanhya's possession. The other gun belonged to one Phulgari, who held a valid licence for the same.

(3.) Kanhya's case may be taken up first. He stated that he made the pistol in the time of Raja Ram Singh. The prosecution led no evidence as to when it was manufactured. Section 19 (a) of the Arms Act penalises manufacture of arms, but not retrospectively. The Indian Arms Act was applied to Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order, 1918, which came into force on 25-12-1948, It follows, therefore, that as there is nothing to show that Kanhya and Anr. vs. The State (20.11.1950 -HPHC) Page 2 of 3 the pistol in question was manufactured by Kanhya after 25-12-1948, his conviction under Section 19 (a) of the Arms Act is unsustainable.