JUDGMENT : STUART, J.:— The District Magistrate of Hamirpur has convicted Mulua under the provisions of section 19 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 20. The facts are as follows:— 2. Mulua is a trolleyman on the G.I.P. Railway and has for many years been employed in his spare time by officers on the line as a shikari. On the 2nd of January, 1919, Mulua was seen by a police constable carrying a double barrelled gun. 3. The police constable asked him what right he had to carry the gun. Mulua explained that he had been sent by Mr. Barton, Resident Engineer of the Railway, with the gun and some cartridges to track and despatch a sambhar which Mr. Barton had wounded the day before. He substantiated this story absolutely by producing a written authority from Mr. Barton directing him to carry the gun and despatch the sambhar. This was all. For this Mulua has been convicted by the District Magistrate and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20. Had there been any case in law against Mulua the prosecution would have been most ill-advised on these facts, and the sentence in no circumstances could be supported. At the most the offence would have been a technical offence not requiring a prosecution. The sentence should never have been more than nominal had Mulua's act constituted an offence. 4. It was laid down in this Court in re Hurby, [1881] A.W.N., 7, that the servant of an European exempted from the operations of the Arms Act commits no offence by carrying his master's gun and shooting game with that gun with his master's permission. Later, it was held by a Bench of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Ganga Din, [1900] I.L.R., 22 All., 118, that in the case of persons exempted from the operations of sections 13 to 16 of the Act such persons would be permitted to send their servants to shoot birds with their weapons. The exemption in the case of the gentleman whose servant was prosecuted in Queen-Empress v. Ganga Din, [1900] I.L.R., 22 All., 118, was under section 2 of the exemption rules. The exemption in Mr. Barton's case is under section 13 but the principle is exactly the same. So the conviction is bad in law. The exemption in the case of the gentleman whose servant was prosecuted in Queen-Empress v. Ganga Din, [1900] I.L.R., 22 All., 118, was under section 2 of the exemption rules. The exemption in Mr. Barton's case is under section 13 but the principle is exactly the same. So the conviction is bad in law. I, therefore, accept this application, set aside the conviction and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded. 5. Application allowed.