NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved