ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision case which has caused me a little trouble. It is a case under Section 19(f), Arms Act. It is important in such cases as these-and indeed in other cases-where an offence under statute is alleged to look first at the statute itself. Section 19, Arms Act, reads thus: Whoever commits any of the following offences...(f) has in his possession or under his control any arms, ammunition or military stores in contravention of the provisions of Section 14 or Section 15...shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2.) It has to be observed that the offence is constituted by "possession or control" of any arms, etc. There is a great temptation sometimes to read into a statute words which are not there and I point out that there is nothing in this section about "exclusive" or "sole" possession or "exclusive" or "sole" control. Moreover, the test provided by the section is not as to whom the arms belong but whether they are in the "possession" or under the "control" of the person charged. With those observations I come to the facts of this case. The facts are not disputed and indeed, in this revision, they could not, I think, be disputed. In March 1939 there was communal trouble in Allahabad. For good and sufficient reasons the District Magistrate had occasion to search the house of this applicant Abdul Rahman. The house itself is one which may be described as running from west to east. It is approached from the west and three entrance doors give on to a single room. At the back of this room are two further doors, the one on the left hand side leading to a series of rooms which were in the personal occupation of the applicant, Abdul Rahman, who lived there with his two adult sons. The doorway on the right after passing through a small passage leads to a courtyard and a room which at the material time were in the occupation of another man, who possibly may have been a relative of Abdul Rahman, called Pir Mohammad. The result is that the front room, that is to say, the most westerly room served as a kind of entrance lobby by which access was gained both to the applicant's rooms and to the room or rooms occupied by Pir Mohammad. Apart from this common entrance, the two sections of the house were quite separate. I ought however to mention that there was an upstairs floor, but it does not enter into this story in any way and it is not really necessary to mention it again. It has been found as a fact that Pir Mohammad was a tenant in respect of his portion of the house from the applicant, Abdul Rahman.

(3.) The District Magistrate when he made his search discovered in the front room near one of the doorways a number of lathis and a bamboo with a spear head fixed to it, in short a spear. And, in consequence of that discovery, the applicant Abdul Rahman was charged under the Section of the Arms Act which I have read with being in possession or in control of this spear. Now, there are certain other facts which have been found in the Court below. It has been found, as I have already indicated, that Abdul Rahman lived in his portion of the house with his two sons. One of the sons is aged 16 and the other one is aged 20. It has, moreover, been found as a fact that the whole house belongs to the applicant and that the front room in addition to forming the common entrance is also used by him as a place to keep his odds and ends in and as a room in which he receives his visitors. I omitted to mention that, at the same time as the discovery of the lathis and spear, a chopper was discovered in another part of the house which Abdul Rahman admits is his. The applicant, however, disclaimed all knowledge of the spear.