EMPEROR Vs. MANJUBHAI GORDHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution were that in the course of a quarrel between himself and one Ranchhod, his neighbour, the applicant asked his brother Bhogilal, who was then present, to go to the house of Jivanlal, another brother of the applicant, and bring him Jivanlal's sword. Bhogilal fetched the sword, the accused took it from Bhogilal and inflicted with it several injuries on Ranchhod and some of Kanchhod's relations. Ranchhod prosecuted the accused under Section S24 of the Indian Penal Code for causing him hurt with a dangerous weapon. The trial Court convicted the applicant of that offence, but in appeal the parties compounded the offence and the appeal Court passed an order acquitting the applicant.

(2.) The present prosecution was instituted against the applicant at the instance of the Police. The applicant was charged with going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Indian Arms Act. Section 13 of the Indian Arms Act provides that no person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby. The finding of the lower Court is that the applicant had no license under the Indian Arms Act in respect of this sword. That finding is not disputed. It is also admitted on behalf of the applicant that his brother Jivanlal had no license for keeping the sword. The lower Court has also found that the accused went armed with the sword. It has been contended before us that the finding of the lower Court on this point is not justified by the facts on which it is based.

(3.) It has been urged by Mr. Thakor that to go armed implies habitually going armed. Reliance is placed in this connection on the meaning of the word "go" in Webster's New International Dictionary, 1927 Edition, page 924. The dictionary meaning is inter alia thus stated: "To pass about or abroad (in a certain state); to be habitually; as to go armed;..." The primary meaning given t0 the term go is to move on a course; to pass, or be passing, from point to point or station to station; to move onward; to proceed ;,.." "In contrast with the more neutral verb move, go carries primarily a notion of self-originated movement." Section 13 of the Indian Arms Act does not use the word "habitually" before the word "go". If we were to accede to the contention of Mr. Thakor on this point, we would be introducing into the section a word which is not there. That even an isolated act of going armed would fall within the purview of the section was decided by a Divisional Bench of this Court in Emperor V/s. Kalyanchand . The accused in that case was not a licensee but his cousin, who held a license, had handed over the gun to him while proceeding in a marriage procession. The accused had fired some shots during the procession with the result that some persons were accidently injured. The Court held that the case rightly fell under Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act. The only plea raised on behalf of the accused in that case was that the terms of the license covered the case of a marriage procession. That contention was overruled. There is nothing in the language of the Indian Arms Act which would, in our opinion, justify the construction which Mr. Thakor asks us to put on Secs.13 and 19 of that Act in respect of the words "go armed."