Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Abdul Kadir Saheb

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 17, 1908
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791553

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Arms Act (XI of 1878), Sections 19(f) and 29 - Proceedings under Section 19(f) initiated without sanction of District Magistrate--Sanction obtained after commitment--Illegality--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1893), Sections 532 and 537. - CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944.[C.A. No. 1/1944]. Section 11: [P. Santhasivam, A...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Abdul Kadir Saheb

Legal References

Reported In
4Ind.Cas.1107a

Excerpt

arms act (xi of 1878), sections 19(f) and 29 - proceedings under section 19(f) initiated without sanction of district magistrate--sanction obtained after commitment--illegality--criminal procedure code (act v of 1893), sections 532 and 537. - central excise act, 1944.[c.a. no. 1/1944]. section 11: [p. santhasivam, a. kulasekaran & s. tamilvanan, jj] possession of property taken by bank under the securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002 - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the s..r.f.a.e.s.i. act, it would be a secured creditor and would have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e., tax, dues etc (crows debts) get priority over ordinary debts. only when there is a specific provision in the statute claiming first charge over the property, the crowns debt is entitled to have priority over the claim of others. in the absence of such specific provision in the central excise act as well as in customs act claim of secured creditor will prevail over crowns debts. -- securities & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]. section 13: possession of property taken by bank under the act - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the act, it would be a secured creditor and would have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e., tax, dues etc (crows debts) get priority over ordinary debts. only when there is a specific provision in the statute claiming first charge over the property, the crowns debt.....1. we have no doubt that the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 19(c) and section 20 of the arms act. as to the offence under section 19(f), section 29 of the arms act lays down that no proceeding shall he instituted against any person in respect of such an offence without the previous sanction of the district magistrate. no such sanction was obtained till after commitment. neither section 532 nor section 537, criminal procedure code, can cure the omission. the conviction under section 19(f) is, therefore, set aside. we reduce the sentence to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.

Full Judgment

1. We have no doubt that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 19(c) and Section 20 of the Arms Act. As to the offence under Section 19(f), Section 29 of the Arms Act lays down that no proceeding shall he instituted against any person in respect of such an offence without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. No such sanction was obtained till after commitment. Neither Section 532 nor Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code, can cure the omission. The conviction under Section 19(f) is, therefore, set aside. We reduce the sentence to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial