Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus against a preventive detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Howrah on June 12, 1971 under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The petitioner was arrested on June 13, 1971 and detained in Dum Dum Central Jail. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner alleged three incidents: on August 17, 1970, the petitioner and associates hurled bombs at members of the R.G. Party near Jatadhari Park; on April 10, 1971, the petitioner and associates armed with a sword assaulted one Basudeb Laha and brandished the sword to terrorize the public; and on May 1, 1971, the petitioner and associates armed with bombs and deadly weapons demanded money from one Banshi Show and threw bombs when refused. Grounds 1 and 3 were admitted to fall under Section 3(2)(d) of the Act as offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 disturbing public order. The only contention raised was that ground No.2, the sword assault, would constitute an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more, and therefore would not fall within Section 3(2)(d), making it an extraneous ground invalidating the detention order. The respondent argued that the sword assault fell under the Arms Act, 1959 because a sword is arms under Section 2(1)(c) and a 1923 notification under the repealed Arms Act, 1878 continued to prohibit carrying swords without licence. The Court held that the definition of arms in Section 2(1)(c) of the Arms Act, 1959 includes sharp-edged deadly weapons, and a sword is plainly arms. Section 4 of the 1959 Act empowers the Central Government to issue notifications regulating possession of arms other than firearms, but no notification had been issued under that section. However, a notification dated March 9, 1923 was issued under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1878, which was similar to Section 4. The Court reasoned that although the 1878 Act was repealed by Section 46(1) of the 1959 Act, the combined effect of Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was that the old notification continued to operate and must be deemed to have been enacted under the 1959 Act. The 1959 Act nowhere indicated an intention that such notification should cease, and Section 46(2) saved only licences, not notifications. Consequently, possession or carrying of a sword without licence in the notified area was an offence under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court concluded that ground No.2 fell under Section 3(2)(d) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, and was not an extraneous ground. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Grounds for Detention - Section 3(2)(d) West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 - Offence Under Arms Act Qualifies - Ground No.2 alleged that petitioner and associates armed with sword assaulted one person causing injuries and brandished sword to terrorise public. Since sword is 'arms' under Section 2(1)(c) of Arms Act, 1959, and the 1923 notification continued to prohibit possession/carrying of such arms without licence, the conduct was an offence under the Arms Act, 1959, not merely Section 324 IPC. As such it fell within clause (d) of Section 3(2) of the West Bengal Act, because it disturbed or was likely to disturb public order. Held that the ground was not extraneous and did not invalidate the detention order (Paras Not mentioned). B) Interpretation of Statutes - Repeal and Savings - Sections 6 and 24 General Clauses Act, 1897 - Continuance of Notification Issued Under Repealed Enactment - A notification dated March 9, 1923 issued under Section 15 of Arms Act, 1878 prohibiting acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than firearms without licence continued to operate after repeal by Arms Act, 1959 and was deemed to have been enacted under the 1959 Act. The 1959 Act nowhere expressed an intention that the old notification should cease; it re-enacted similar provisions in Section 4. Held that the notification was in force on the date of the alleged offence (Paras Not mentioned). C) Arms Act - Definition of Arms - Section 2(1)(c) Arms Act, 1959 - Sword Is Arms - The definition of 'arms' includes articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, including firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons. A sword is a sharp-edged deadly weapon and thus falls within the definition. Held that carrying a sword without licence in a notified area was an offence under the Arms Act, 1959 (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether ground No. 2 of the detention order, alleging causing injuries with a sword, fell within Section 3(2)(d) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 as an offence under the Arms Act, 1959, and whether the 1923 notification issued under the Arms Act, 1878 continued to operate after repeal by the Arms Act, 1959
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention order. The Court held that the sword assault in ground No.2 constituted an offence under the Arms Act, 1959, and therefore fell within Section 3(2)(d) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The contention that ground No.2 was extraneous was rejected, and the detention order was not invalidated.
Law Points
- A sword is 'arms' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Arms Act
- 1959
- a notification issued under Section 15 of the Arms Act
- 1878 continues in force and is deemed to have been made under the Arms Act
- 1959 by virtue of Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act
- 1897
- an offence under the Arms Act
- 1959 involving a sword without licence falls within Section 3(2)(d) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act
- 1970
- preventive detention ground based on sword assault is not extraneous
