- (1.)THIS is an appeal by accused Kanhaiyalal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 29th June 1959, whereby he has been convicted under Section 20 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R. I.
(2.)THE charge against the appellant, which has been found to be proved against him by the trial court, was that on the night between 6th and 7th August, 1958, when his personal search was taken by Shri Vinod Kishan Kaul, Assistant Superintendent of Police (under training), one Mauser automatic pistol No. 103464 together with 8 live cartridges was found in the pocket of his shirt which he was wearing. The allegation against the appellant was that he had not obtained any licence for possessing a firearm or ammunition. It was further alleged against him that since the pistol was found in the right hand side of his lower pocket wrapped up in a handkerchief, he committed an act mentioned in clause (f) of Section 19 of the Arms Act in such manner as to indicate an intention that the said act may not be known to any public servant as defined in the Indian Penal Code. Thus, he was charged for committing an offence under Section 20 of the Arms Act. The accused denied the recovery of the arm and ammunition from his person, but the trial court found this fact proved against him and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has raised two objections in this Court. It is contended, in the first instance, that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 20 by presuming that he intended to conceal the pistol and cartridges from the eye of any public servant on the mere ground that they were found in his pocket. It is next contended that if the charge under Section 20 does not stand, then the appellant cannot be convicted even under Section 19 (f), because no sanction of the District Magistrate was obtained before the institution of the proceedings as required by Section 29 of the Arms Act.
;