https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199604 Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 was discriminatory and void under Article 14 because its sanction-for-prosecution scheme depended on a historical territorial classification that no longer had a rational nexus with the statute's object. The provision was nevertheless severable, so striking down the defective procedural safeguard did not affect the substantive offence under section 19(f), which remained valid because the offence was complete independently of sanction. The Court also rejected the challenge based on the nature of the pistol and the alleged uneven practice in launching prosecutions, finding no unconstitutional discrimination on those grounds. en-us Thu, 03 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 15:57:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199604 Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 was discriminatory and void under Article 14 because its sanction-for-prosecution scheme depended on a historical territorial classification that no longer had a rational nexus with the statute's object. The provision was nevertheless severable, so striking down the defective procedural safeguard did not affect the substantive offence under section 19(f), which remained valid because the offence was complete independently of sanction. The Court also rejected the challenge based on the nature of the pistol and the alleged uneven practice in launching prosecutions, finding no unconstitutional discrimination on those grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199604