Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)Section 19 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Mt. Gajrani And Anr. vs Emperor on 2 February, 1933
In Babo's case 26 Cr. L. J. 1459 : A. I. R (13) 1926 Lah. 61), there was more than ordinary concealment; the accused who was a woman, hid under the chaddar that she was wearing a bag containing arms. A woman does not go armed and everything was unusual about the manner in which Babo carried the arms. Harsha Nath also acted unusually in the matter of keeping illicit arms in his house.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 13 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Jogendra Mohan Guha vs Emperor on 1 September, 1932
As there is no evidence of any antecedent of the appellant I need not discuss how far antecedents are relevant in an enquiry about the intention behind carrying an unlicensed pistol in a hand-bag or trunk, In Jogendra Mohan's case: (34 Cr. L. J. 879: A. I. R. (20) 1933 Cal. 516) reliance was placed upon the fact that he did not offer any explanation for his being found in possession of an unlicensed revolver. The appellant before me similarly might have failed to give explanation for his possession but I do not know how I can deduce that he had the particular intention merely from his failure to give explanation.
Ram Sarup vs Emperor on 2 September, 1947
In Ram Sarup v. Emperor, 3 A. L. J. 833 : (3 Cr. L. J. 88), Bannerji J. was of the opinion that "there must be some overt act of concealment or attempt at concealment." There is no evidence in the present case of any special concealment which can be distinguished from the ordinary concealment. There is no evidence of any overt act. On the other hand, there is the clear statement of Sughar Singh himself that the appellant confessed, even before the hand-bag wag opened, that there was a pistol in it. When he himself confessed that there was a pistol, I do not know how it can be said that he kept it in the band-bag with the intention of concealing its presence there from a public or railway servant.
Sachindra Mohan Sen Roy vs Emperor on 4 December, 1947
In the case of Sachindra v. Emperor: (35 Cr. L. J. 125; A. I. R. (20) 1933 Cal.
Norman O'Connor vs Emperor on 4 February, 1935
13. Among the cases in which the accused was convicted under Section 19 rather than under Section 20 and from which I derive some support for my view are those of Ram Sarup (3 A. L. J. 833: 3 Cr. L. J. 88), Ghulam Mohammad. (&. I E. (H) 1927 Lah. 561: 28 Cr. L. J. 671), Chet Singh (A. I. r. (13) 1926 Lah. 262: 27 Cr. L. J. 625) and Surajan Singh (26 Cr. L. J. 166: A. I. R. (10) 1923 Lah. 1o), Sabjhatullah Shah v. Emperor, 32 Cr. L. J. 517: (A. I. R. (18) 1931 Sind 9 and The Crown v. Azu, 9 Cr. L. J. 259: (1 S. L. R. 18). Ram Sarup concealed fire arms in a granary and behind the beams in his shop and even denied at the commencement of the search that he had any illicit arms in his possession still he was not found guilty under Section 20. Ghulam Mohammad was caught in a Court compound with arms concealed in a fold of the loin cloth. Chet Singh carried revolvers and cartidges in a gunny bag. Surjan Singh travelling by train, had arms concealed in his loin cloth. Sabjhatuallah Shah kept arms in locked box in the tahkhana of his house. Azu concealed arms under straw in his house. I do mention cases of Ibrahim (44 P. W. R. Cr. 1912: 9 P. R. 1912) and Channan Singh (A. I. R. (12) 1925 Lah. 395: 26 Cr. L. J. 733) because they proceeded on a view which has been discarded by later authorities.
Wahid Ullah Ahrari vs Emperor on 11 March, 1935
There is one more case, Abdul Wahid v. Emperor, 29 Cr. L. J. 256: (A. I. R. (15) 1928 Lah. 110), in which the accused was convicted under Section 20 because he was found on a railway platform with arms concealed in his loin cloth. If it was an unusual way of carrying arms tied in the loin cloth the conviction under Section 20 is understood.