1978 (9) TMI 186 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction upheld under Arms Act with valid extension to Sikkim

Raj Kumar Rai Versus State of Sikkim

The court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, extended to Sikkim. It found the extension valid under ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Arms Act, 1959, in Sikkim.2. Appeal against conviction based on a plea of guilty under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898.3. Repeal of the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, upon extension of the Arms Act, 1959.4. Interpretation of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Arms Act, 1959, in Sikkim:The accused-appellant was convicted under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which was extended to Sikkim by the President through a notification under Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India on May 16, 1975, and enforced on August 1, 1976. The charge was that the accused possessed a revolver and a live cartridge without a license. The court emphasized that if the Arms Act, 1959, is validly operative in Sikkim, the conviction must be maintained and the appeal dismissed.2. Appeal against conviction based on a plea of guilty under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898:Under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898, which is applicable in Sikkim, if an accused pleads guilty and is convicted on such a plea, there is no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence, unless the conviction is by a Magistrate of the Second or Third Class. The court noted that if the law under which the accused is convicted is not in force, the plea of guilty does not amount to an admission of an offense. Therefore, if the Arms Act, 1959, is not validly operative in Sikkim, the appeal challenging the legality of the conviction is maintainable.3. Repeal of the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, upon extension of the Arms Act, 1959:The court examined whether the extension of the Arms Act, 1959, to Sikkim was valid despite the non-repeal of the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962. The Advocate-General argued that the extension was valid even without repealing the Sikkim law, citing other Central enactments extended to Sikkim similarly. The court referred to the Delhi Laws Act case (AIR 1951 SC 332) and Bhaiyalal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 981) to analyze the validity of extending laws without repealing existing ones. The court concluded that the extension of the Arms Act, 1959, to Sikkim was valid and that the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, were impliedly repealed.4. Interpretation of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India:The court discussed the provisions of Article 371F (n), which allows the President to extend any enactment in force in a State in India to Sikkim with modifications. The court noted that the majority view in the Delhi Laws Act case supports the validity of extending laws by the Executive, even if it results in the repeal of existing laws. The court emphasized that the delegation under Article 371F (n) was made by Parliament in exercise of its constituent power, making it valid despite resulting in the repeal of existing laws.The court also addressed the argument that the Constitution provides for the repeal of Sikkim laws only by a competent Legislature or by the President under Clause (l) of Article 371F. The court rejected this argument, stating that the implied repeal of Sikkim laws by the extension of Central laws under Clause (n) is valid and within the scope of the Constitution.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Arms Act, 1959, was validly extended to Sikkim and that the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, were impliedly repealed. Therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellant was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.