MADHO LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner for an offence under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Arms Act, should not be set aside.

(2.) It appears from the facts of the case as set out in the trial record that the petitioner was found with a gun in the village of Kharari at 6 o clock one morning and that a Head Constable whose attention had been drawn by hearing of the gun fire went to the village. At the time of the Head Constable's arrival the accused was found re-loading the gun and there were some powder and shot and caps in paper parcels alongside of him.

(3.) The defence set up was that the gun belonged to the master of the accused and that the master of the accused was at the time in the village in which the accused was firing the gun. The lower Court, however, found on the evidence that the master of the accused was not in that village at all but was in a different village and that the accused was using the gun for his own proposes and that the gun had been lent to him by his master.