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.

Empress Vs. Tegha Singh

Empress vs Tegha Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 07, 1882
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/854628

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Arms Act (XI of 1878), Section 19, Clause (f), and Sections 25 and 30, - Arms in a temple--Confiscation of arms used for purposes of worship--Inspector specially empowered--License to possess arms--Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 679 and Schedule iv--'Offences against other laws.' -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Empress

Respondent

Tegha Singh

Legal References

Reported In
(1882)ILR8Cal473

Excerpt

arms act (xi of 1878), section 19, clause (f), and sections 25 and 30, - arms in a temple--confiscation of arms used for purposes of worship--inspector specially empowered--license to possess arms--criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), section 679 and schedule iv--'offences against other laws.' - cunningham, j.1. with reference to section 579 of the criminal procedure code and the concluding heading of the fourth schedule ('offences against other laws,') and section 19, clause (f) of the arms act, xi of 1878, we are not satisfied that there has been any illegality in the proceeding's either of the police inspector in this case or in the conviction of the accused.2. section 25 of the arms act appears to refer to cases in which the magistrate considers that arms, whether under a license or not, are possessed 'for an illegal purpose,' or under circumstances such as to endanger the public peace, neither of which conditions is suggested as existing here. it is not clear from the sessions judge's reference whether the police inspector was specially empowered under section 30. that section appears to contemplate the presence of some specially empowered officer besides the officer conducting the search.3. there is nothing in the act to exempt the custodians of the temple from complying with the requirements of the act either by taking out a license or obtaining exemption under section 27.4. on the other hand, they may well have imagined that the act did not extend to weapons which were objects of interest or worship rather than 'arms' in the proper sense of the word.5. we set aside so much of the deputy magistrate's order as refers to the division of the value of the fire-arms and the fine imposed between the informer and the inspector, and we direct that the case be submitted for such orders as the government of bengal may be pleased to pass.

Full Judgment

Cunningham, J.

1. With reference to Section 579 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the concluding heading of the fourth schedule ('offences against other laws,') and Section 19, Clause (f) of the Arms Act, XI of 1878, we are not satisfied that there has been any illegality in the proceeding's either of the Police Inspector in this case or in the conviction of the accused.

2. Section 25 of the Arms Act appears to refer to cases in which the Magistrate considers that arms, whether under a license or not, are possessed 'for an illegal purpose,' or under circumstances such as to endanger the public peace, neither of which conditions is suggested as existing here. It is not clear from the Sessions Judge's reference whether the Police Inspector was specially empowered under Section 30. That section appears to contemplate the presence of some specially empowered officer besides the officer conducting the search.

3. There is nothing in the Act to exempt the custodians of the temple from complying with the requirements of the Act either by taking out a license or obtaining exemption under Section 27.

4. On the other hand, they may well have imagined that the Act did not extend to weapons which were objects of interest or worship rather than 'arms' in the proper sense of the word.

5. We set aside so much of the Deputy Magistrate's order as refers to the division of the value of the fire-arms and the fine imposed between the informer and the Inspector, and we direct that the case be submitted for such orders as the Government of Bengal may be pleased to pass.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial