Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused in C.C.100/59 on the file of the 1st Class Magistrate, Meenachil. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under S.19 [f] of the Arms Act [Act XI of 1878). 2. The accused is the holder of a licence Hol. No. 1313 in respect of a single barrel gun M.O.1. The licence for the gun expired on 31-12-1958. It was not renewed and the accused retained possession of the gun without a licence till he surrendered the gun to the police on a requisition by them, Ext. P5. According to the accused the trigger of the gun was out of order and the gun was entrusted to a blacksmith for repairs, that he was under the impression that the licence expires only on 31-3-1959 and that was why he did not apply for renewal. 3. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has not proved that the accused was in possession of the gun, that the gun M.O.1 was an unserviceable gun and is not'a firearm within the meaning of the term'firearm' as defined in the Act. 4. S.14 is clear that a man who possesses a firearm, for which he holds an expired licence does not do so "under the licence and in the manner and to the extent permitted thereby" and possession of the arm in contravention of the provisions of S.14 makes it an offence punishable under S.19 [f]. Merely because it is given for repairs, even if that is true, would not take it away from being in the possession or control of the licence holder. The possession of the repairer will only amount to mere custody. Even if it is in the temporary custody of the repairer, the possession of the gun must be deemed to have remained with the accused the licence holder though it was not in his physical possession. There need not be any evidence that during the period the accused was using the gun as the learned Magistrate seems to think. The section does not also speak of any mens rea. 5. The act of the accused would also be an offence under S.19 (i) which specifically deals with the failure to deposit arms as required under S.16 of the Act. The section does not also speak of any mens rea. 5. The act of the accused would also be an offence under S.19 (i) which specifically deals with the failure to deposit arms as required under S.16 of the Act. Under S.16 a weapon which is not covered by a licence has to be deposited with the officer in charge of the nearest police station as soon as the licence expires. So without anything more the accused commits the offence when he does not deposit the gun after the period of the licence. 6. The only question that remains is whether the gun M.O.1 could be said to be'a firearm' within the meaning of the Act. Arms is defined under S.4. It says: It "arms" includes fire-arms, bayonots, swords, daggers, spears, spearheads and bows and arrows, also cannon and parts of arms, and machinery for manufacturing arms." Firearm means, arms that are fired by means of gunpowder or other explosives. Here in this case what is stated is that according to Ext. P2 the mahazar, M.O.1 was not in a proper condition as the trigger was out of order. There is no evidence that it is irreparable and I am not able to see anything in the gun to indicate that it is an unserviceable one. 7. That a firearm even though it is unserviceable but could be repaired is 'a firearm', the possession of which without a licence would amount to an offence has been held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Queen Empress v. Jayarami Reddi [TLR. 21 Mad 360]. Their Lordships overruled the earlier ruling in Queen v. Siddappa [ILR. 6 Mad 60]. Otherwise it would be open to anybody possessing a firearm to remove the screw of the trigger and thus render it unserviceable as a weapon and thereby evade the provisions of the law. 8. The decision in ILR. 21 Mad. 360 has been followed in a later case in Public Prosecutor v. Kandikatla Nagabhushanam alias Bhushanam [AIR. 1043 Mad. 661]. 9. The case of the accused was only that the trigger was out of order and that it was given for repairs. There was no case for him that the gun could not be repaired at all and rendered serviceable. If it could be repaired as in this case, it would come within the meaning of the term'firearm'. 10. 661]. 9. The case of the accused was only that the trigger was out of order and that it was given for repairs. There was no case for him that the gun could not be repaired at all and rendered serviceable. If it could be repaired as in this case, it would come within the meaning of the term'firearm'. 10. The order of acquittal is therefore unsustainable in law and is set aside. The accused is found guilty and convicted under S.19[f] of the Arms Act. In the circumstances of this case the ends of justice would be met by imposing a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week Time for payment of fine one month from this date. Appeal allowed. Allowed.