Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

T. Devendiran v. State - (High Court of Madras) (24 Jun 2016)

Hitting with a gun not the same as shooting with one

Criminal

The Madras High Court deleted a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act against an accused who attacked the complainant physically with a gun.

Instead of shooting the complainant, the accused had bashed him on the head with the butt of the gun. No shots were fired in the altercation. Section 25 of the Act is a provision making punishable a wide variety of gun-related activities, including: converting imitation firearms into operational weapons; or indulges in the sale and manufacture of ammunition.

The court noted that the the accused was licensed to own the gun and only caused a “simple injury”, not a gunshot wound. As such, the matter was outside the remit of Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Tags : ARMS ACT   ASSAULT   SIMPLE INJURY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved