SARJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the learned Seasions Judge, Sitapur dismissing the appeal of Sarju against his conviction under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act (Act 11 of 1878) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 13 months.

(2.) The only point argued before me in this case is that because the Indian Arms Act, 11 of 1878" was repealed by the Arms Act, 54 of 1959, the whole proceedings under Section 19 (f) of the repealed Act instituted on 2nd May, 1962 ending in the conviction of the applicant on 25th August, 1962 are void and cannot be cured by any provision of law. It has been contended that the provisions of Section 19 (f) were not saved by the saving Section 46 (2) of the Arms Act, 54 of 1959 or Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act. Another objection was raised in paragraph 4 of the application for revision that sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 54 of 1959 was not obtained before the institution of the case against the applicant and so the prosecution was bad for want of sanction. However, the learned counsel conceded before me that sanction for the prosecution had seen duly obtained and he did not press this ground.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length but am unable to agree with his contention. An unlicensed country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the applicant when he was arrested on 1st March, 1952. A challan was submitted by the police against him on 2nd May, 1962 and after trial, he was convicted on 25th August, 1962. As already stated the prosecution was under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act, 11 of 1878. The new Act called the Arms Act, 1959, received the assent of the President on 23rd December, 1959 and it was laid down In Section 1 (3) of this Act that it would come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that because the Act was not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, it should be deemed to have come into operation on the date it received the assent of the President i.e. on 23rd December, 1959, long before the prosecution of the applicant. This contention is not correct. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 10 of 1897, lays down that where any Central Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent, in the case of an Act of Parliament, of the President. Thus an Act of Parliament shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent only where it is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day. In the case of the Arms Act, 54 of 1959, it was definitely expressed to come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. The 'particular day' for the purposes of this Act was the date as the Central Government was to appoint. The legislature had delegated the power of appointing the date to the Central Government and so the date which might in future be appointed by the Central Government, was to be the 'particular day' on which the Act was expressed to come into operation. Sub-section (1) of Sec tion 5 of the General Clauses Act does not contemplate that a particular day should necessarily be appointed by the legislature. The particular day can also be the day which the Central Government may be authorised to appoint. By a notification No. GSR 992 dated 13th July, 1962, the Central Government appointed 1st October, 1962 as the date on which the new Arms Act, 54 of 1959, was to come into force. For the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, this new Act was sufficiently express-ed to come into operation on this date and it shall be deem-ed to have come into operation on 1st October 1962 and not on the date on which it received the assent of the President.