https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199993 Article 371F(n) was treated as sufficient constitutional authority to extend the Arms Act, 1959 to Sikkim even though the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962 had not been expressly repealed. The extended central enactment operated by force of the Constitution and displaced the local rules to the extent of inconsistency through implied repeal. On that basis, the Arms Act was regarded as validly in force in Sikkim, and a conviction founded on a plea of guilty was not open to challenge on merits on this ground. en-us Fri, 15 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:59:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199993 Article 371F(n) was treated as sufficient constitutional authority to extend the Arms Act, 1959 to Sikkim even though the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962 had not been expressly repealed. The extended central enactment operated by force of the Constitution and displaced the local rules to the extent of inconsistency through implied repeal. On that basis, the Arms Act was regarded as validly in force in Sikkim, and a conviction founded on a plea of guilty was not open to challenge on merits on this ground. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199993