Sword possession under Arms Act and continuing notification upheld as detention ground under preventive law

Possession or carrying of a sword was treated as falling within the Arms Act, 1959 because a sword is an "arm" under section 2(1)(c). Although section 4 of the 1959 Act required a notification for regulating specified arms, an earlier 1923 notification under the repealed Indian Arms Act, 1878 continued in force by operation of sections 6(b) and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and was deemed to apply under the re-enacted law. As a result, carrying a sword without licence in the notified area constituted an Arms Act offence and could be relied on under clause (d) of section 3(2) of the detention statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was invalid because one of the grounds relied upon related to possession and carrying of a sword, and whether such activity fell within clause (d) of section 3(2) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 as an offence punishable under the Arms Act, 1959.

Analysis: The grounds of detention included acts involving bombs and violence, which were plainly within clause (d), and the only controversy was whether the sword-related incident was outside the statutory definition. A sword was held to be an "arm" within section 2(1)(c) of the Arms Act, 1959. Although section 4 of that Act required a notification regulating possession or carrying of specified arms, no such notification was issued under the 1959 Act; however, a 1923 notification issued under section 15 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 was in existence. By virtue of sections 6(b) and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the repeal of the earlier Act did not affect the prior operation of the notification, and the notification continued in force and was deemed to have been made under the re-enacted provision in the 1959 Act. Possession or carrying of a sword without licence in the notified area therefore amounted to an offence under the Arms Act, 1959 and was covered by clause (d) of section 3(2) of the detention statute.

Conclusion: The sword-related ground was not extraneous, and the detention order was not invalid on that account; the contention failed.

---