Bombay HC: Railway Employee With Valid Privilege Pass is Bona Fide Passenger Despite Missing Entries  ||  Delhi High Court: Mere Pleadings Made To Prosecute or Defend a Case Do Not Amount To Defamation  ||  Delhi High Court: Asking an Accused To Cross-Examine a Witness Without Legal Aid Vitiates The Trial  ||  Delhi High Court: Recruitment Notice Error Creates No Appointment Right Without Vacancy  ||  Supreme Court: Subordinate Legislation Takes Effect Only From its Publication in The Official Gazette  ||  Supreme Court: DDA Must Adopt a Litigation Policy To Screen Cases and Avoid Unnecessary Filings  ||  Authorities Holding Public Auctions Must Disclose All Known Encumbrances and Related Litigation  ||  SC: Compensatory Allowances Must Be Included While Computing Overtime Wages U/S 59 of Factories Act  ||  SC: NGT Has No Jurisdiction to Decide Disputes Relating to Building Plan Violations  ||  SC: Evidence is Often Fabricated Using AI And False Allegations are Rampant in Matrimonial Cases    

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