NizamuddIn Vs. State

Nizamuddin vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided Jan 02, 1952

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/889339

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/889339
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge: Chowdhry, J.C.
Decided On: Jan 02, 1952
Case Number: Criminal Ref. No. 10 of 1951
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Arms Act, 1878 - Sections 19 and 29

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nizamuddin

Advocate Harish Chandar, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate N.D. Gupta, Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arms Act, 1878 - Sections 19 and 29
Reported In: AIR1952HP45

Excerpt

- orderchowdhry, j.c. 1. this is a reference by the learned sessions judge of bilaspur under section 438, criminal p. c., recommending that the conviction of one nizamuddin under clauses (a) and (f) of s. 19 of the arms act be set aside. the reference has not been opposed by the learned government advocate.2. as regards the offence under section 19(a), there is no evidence of manufacture and therefore conviction under that section is on the face of it totally unfounded. as regards the conviction under section 19(f), previous sanction of the district magistrate was not obtained, as it was necessary to do. 'kanhya v. state', a i r 1951 him p 35. the learned government advocate does not contend that that ruling does not apply to bilaspur by reason of the provisions of s. 32(2) of act xxxi (31) of 1861 having ever been applied to this state.3. the reference is accepted and the conviction and sentence of nizamuddin are set aside and he is acquitted. the fine, if alreadyrealised, shall be refunded to him.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Chowdhry, J.C.

1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Bilaspur under Section 438, Criminal P. C., recommending that the conviction of one Nizamuddin under Clauses (a) and (f) of S. 19 of the Arms Act be set aside. The reference has not been opposed by the learned Government Advocate.

2. As regards the offence under Section 19(a), there is no evidence of manufacture and therefore conviction under that section is on the face of it totally unfounded. As regards the conviction under Section 19(f), previous sanction of the District Magistrate was not obtained, as it was necessary to do. 'KANHYA v. STATE', A I R 1951 Him P 35. The learned Government Advocate does not contend that that ruling does not apply to Bilaspur by reason of the provisions of S. 32(2) of Act XXXI (31) of 1861 having ever been applied to this State.

3. The reference is accepted and the conviction and sentence of Nizamuddin are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if alreadyrealised, shall be refunded to him.

Same Parties Nizamuddin vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Chowdhry, J.C. Acts & Sections Arms Act, 1878 - Sections 19 and 29

Criminal