The Queen Vs. Vyapuri Kangani

The Queen vs Vyapuri Kangani

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 25, 1883

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782170

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/782170
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
Decided On: May 25, 1883
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arms Act, Section 4 - Arms--Parts of arms--Serviceable gun-barrel. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen

Respondent

Vyapuri Kangani

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad70

Excerpt

arms act, section 4 - arms--parts of arms--serviceable gun-barrel. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the term 'arms' in act xi of 1878 includes parts of arms. if then, the look and barrel of the gun, of which the accused admitted possession, were serviceable, the ground on which the conviction was set aside was erroneous. the statement of the accused that the gun had been delivered to his friend that a new stock might be supplied to it argues that it was serviceable. a re-hearing of the appeal would have been directed had not the appellant been sufficiently punished under the circumstances by the incarceration he has undergone.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The term 'arms' in Act XI of 1878 includes parts of arms. If then, the look and barrel of the gun, of which the accused admitted possession, were serviceable, the ground on which the conviction was set aside was erroneous. The statement of the accused that the gun had been delivered to his friend that a new stock might be supplied to it argues that it was serviceable. A re-hearing of the appeal would have been directed had not the appellant been sufficiently punished under the circumstances by the incarceration he has undergone.

Same Parties The Queen vs Vyapuri Kangani Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

Criminal