KALLU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The house of the applicant was searched in connexion with a dacoity on 5th November 1924, when some empty cartridges were found in his house. As he was not a licensed holder of arms, he was put up on his trial on a charge under Section 19(f), Arms Act, in connexion with these cartridges. His defence was that his village was situate in a place where people went to do shooting, and that consequently a good many empty cartridges could be found there. He had not collected these cartridges, but that they had been brought by his children as curiosities. Consequently he was not guilty of any offence in connexion with these cartridges. The lower Court has overruled this defence and has accordingly inflicted a fine of Rs, 50 on the applicant. Hence the present application.

(2.) The question to be decided in this case is very simple. The learned vakil of the applicant has practically accepted that the cartridges were recovered from his house. He has however argued that there was nothing on the record to show that these cartridges could be re-loaded in India, and so they could not be regarded as ammunition within the meaning of the Arms Act. It appears from the judgment of the Magistrate that he has followed the ruling of the Hon ble Court reported as Baldeo Singh V/s. Emperor (1910) 32 All 152. In that ruling it has been laid down that an empty cartridge is ammunition within the meaning of the Arms Act, and so a person found in possession of it is guilty of an offence under Section 19(f), Arms Act. On the other hand, the learned vakil of the applicant has pressed upon me the ruling of the Hon ble Court reported as Amir V/s. Emperor . In that ruling it has been held that if an empty cartridge cannot be re-loaded in India, it may not be regarded as ammunition within the meaning of Section 19(f), Arms Act, I think that when both these rulings are considered together, it may be taken that in a case of possession of empty cartridges, it should be proved that these cartridges can be re-loaded in India and used as ammunition by the persons with whom they are found. If this is not found, it is to be held that the recovered cartridges are not ammunition and so no prosecution can be made on their basis. In the present case, there is no proof on the record to show that the cartridges that were recovered from the applicant's house were cartridges that could be reloaded in India. If the present case had been an appeal, I would have recorded further evidence on this point and decided the case on the basis of that evidence. But as this is not an appeal but an application for revision, I think that I have no authority to do so. In these circumstances, I think that the evidence against the applicant is not sufficient and that benefit of the went of that sufficient evidence should be given to the applicant.

(3.) I accordingly submit the case to the Hon ble Court with the recommendation that the conviction of the applicant be set aside and the fine, if paid by him, should be refunded. The record is to be sent to the Magistrate with the request that he may submit any explanation that he thinks fit,