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.

Queen-empress Vs. Jayarami Reddi

Queen-empress vs Jayarami Reddi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 10, 1897
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791842

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 - Act XI of 1878, Section 4--Possession of unserviceable fire-arm without a licence. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Jayarami Reddi

Legal References

Cases Referred
The Queen v. Siddappa I.L.R. Mad.
Reported In
(1898)ILR21Mad360

Excerpt

arms act - act xi of 1878, section 4--possession of unserviceable fire-arm without a licence. - 1. we think there is no doubt that the revolver in the case is a fire-arm within the meaning of the act. the question is not so much whether the particular weapon is serviceable as a fire-arm, but whether it has lost its specific character and has so ceased to be a fire-arm. in referring to the serviceable character of the arm we think the decision in the queen v. siddappa i.l.r. mad. 60 was not correct and that the proper test was lost sight of. whether in any particular case the instrument is a fire-arm or not, is a question of fact to be determined according to circumstances. we answer the question in the affirmative.2. this case again coming on for final disposal after the expression of the opinion of the full bench, the court (collins, c.j., and benson, j.) delivered the following judgment:3. the ruling of the full bench renders it necessary to set aside the acquittal. we accordingly do this, and we restore the conviction and sentence passed by the joint magistrate.

Full Judgment

1. We think there is no doubt that the revolver in the case is a fire-arm within the meaning of the Act. The question is not so much whether the particular weapon is serviceable as a fire-arm, but whether it has lost its specific character and has so ceased to be a fire-arm. In referring to the serviceable character of the arm we think the decision in The Queen v. Siddappa I.L.R. Mad. 60 was not correct and that the proper test was lost sight of. Whether in any particular case the instrument is a fire-arm or not, is a question of fact to be determined according to circumstances. We answer the question in the affirmative.

2. This case again coming on for final disposal after the expression of the opinion of the Full Bench, the Court (Collins, C.J., and Benson, J.) delivered the following judgment:

3. The ruling of the Full Bench renders it necessary to set aside the acquittal. We accordingly do this, and we restore the conviction and sentence passed by the Joint Magistrate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial