GANGA PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the night of 21 October 1932, Ganga Prasad Sahu was arrested by the police in a maize field in possession of two loaded country made revolvers and fifteen live revolver cartridges. He was placed on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur on charges under Secs.19(e) and (f) and 20, Arms Act. The assessors found him not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge, disagreeing with their opinion, has convicted the appellant on all the charges, and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 19, Clauses (e) and (f), and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 20, the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr. Verma, who appears for the appellant, does not contest the convictions under Section 19. He has contended that the circumstances do not indicate that the accused had an intention to conceal, from the persons specifically mentioned in Section 20 the offence which he was committing under Section 19(e) and (f). According to the prosecution the police had received information that Ganga Prasad Sahu and others contemplated the omission of a dacoity in the house of one Brijmohan Misir and it was in consequence of that information that they were able to make their plan and capture the appellant. A person proceeding to commit dacoity with arms in his possession would ordinarily carry them in his pocket or in his clothes without there being any express intention on his part to conceal them from public servants or railway employees or the servants of a public carrier, so that the mere fact that the weapon is not exposed to view does not necessarily indicate the intention mentioned in Section 20.

(3.) As was pointed out by Addison, J., in Chet Singh V/s. Emperor, A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 262, the question whether the circumstances justify the inference that the intention was such as is indicated in Section 20 must depend on the particular circumstances of each case. In Harnam Singh V/s. Emperor AIR 1929, Lah. 576, where a person was carrying a spear under his clothes next to his akin and was charged under Section 20, Arms Act, it was held that the mere fact that he was carrying this in the manner stated was not sufficient to justify the inference that his intention was to conceal the weapon from the persons mentioned in Section 20. There are many cases on the same point, some on their own facts being decided one way and some the other.