EMPEROR Vs. MAULA BOVJI SHIKALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two applicants were convicted by the second class Magistrate of Islampur under Section 22 of the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days.

(2.) The facts of the case are not disputed. On October 6, 1928, applicant No. 1 sold a sword- stick to applicant No. 2. Applicant No. 1 had no license to sell arms, nor had applicant No. 2 any license to possess or carry arms. By a notification No. 1234-Pol. of August 3, 1925, the Government of Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by entry No. 1 in the table subjoined to Schedule II appended to the Indian Arms Rules, 1924, declared that swords with the exception of certain kinds, which were specifically mentioned, were subject to all the provisions contained in the Indian Arms Act, throughout the whole presidency. It is admitted that sword-sticks have not been excluded specifically under item No. (3) of the table annexed to this notification. The contention on behalf of the applicants, however, is that sword-sticks do not fall within the meaning of the word "swords" used in this table. In support of this contention, our attention has been drawn to the fact that in item No. (4) of the same table sword-sticks are specifically mentioned as being subject to the prohibitions of the Act in Bombay and Karachi cities. The contention is that if it was the intention of the legislature that sword-sticks should be treated as swords there was no necessity to mention sword-sticks separately in item No. (4), We are, however, of opinion that separate mention of swordsticks in item No. (4) was unnecessary, and was probably done as a matter of caution. Under the ordinary interpretation of the word "sword", that word would include sword-sticks. We are supported in this view by the decision in Emperor V/s. Satish Chandra Roy (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 749 in which it was held that a sword-stick is a "sword" within the meaning of the term "sword" in the Indian Arms Act.

(3.) On behalf of the applicants reliance has been placed on the ruling in Emperor V/s. Babaji Manaji in which it was held that the mere possession of a jambia (a kind of dagger) was not an offence under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, in virtue of Schedule II to the Act. The decision in that case, however, does not help the applicants at all. The weapon in that case was a dagger, which cannot be treated as falling under the heading of swords in the table appended to the Government Notification. A dagger is an entirely different kind of weapon, and is separately mentioned in Section 4 of the Indian Arms Act along with swords. Daggers would, therefore, fall under item No. (2) of the table appended to the notification of the Government of Bombay, and not under item No. (3). Under item No. (3), the possession as well as the carrying of swords, which, in our opinion, includes sword-sticks, is prohibited.