1. The learned Judge has explained the law on the subject in his order of reference and I agree with him. The applicant Manzur Husain is a licensed gunmaker and a certain gun was made over to him by Mohan Singh a licensed holder to repair. Mohan Singh’s direction was that after the gun was repaired, it may be made over either to Jagannath or to Partap Singh to bring over to Mohan Singh. The gun was repaired, and made over to both the persons authorized by the licensed holder. Jagannath was carrying the gun and Partap Singh following him when a police officer arrested Jagannath with the gun and learning that he had obtained it from the applicant Manzur Husain, prosecuted the applicant under Section 22, Arms Act. The trial Court of a Magistrate recorded a conviction. The learned Judge has quoted cases in support of his view that delivery into possession contemplated by Section 22, Arms Act, was such a delivery as to give the person into whose possession arm is delivered control over the arm and authority to use it as an arm. Manzur Husain made over the gun to Jagannath merely to carry it to its owner and not with any authority to use it as an arm. Even if Jagannath had misused his privilege and used the gun instead of carrying it to Mohan Singh, Jagannath would have been liable for unlicensed possession of the gun and not Manzur Husain under Section 22, Arms Act. A licensed-holder of a gun can permit another person who is not so licensed to carry his gun. The permission of the licensed-holder to Jagannath to carry the gun is proved and Manzur Husain was merely acting under the directions of the licensed-holder.
2. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the fine if any recovered to be refunded.