Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) These are three connected cases in which an identical question of law arises for consideration and we consequently propose to dispose them of by this common judgment. These cases which should normally have been heard by a learned single Judge have been heard by a Division Bench as a result of a reference to a larger Bench made by our brother Hamid Hussain, J. in the circumstances set out below: The Applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 2178 of 1970 was convicted by a First Class Magistrate, Allahabad, Under Sec. 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act -hereinafter referred to as the Act -and sentenced to a term of six months' RI. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned First Temporary Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Ayub, the Applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 1443 of 1970, was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months Under Sec. 25(1)(b) of the Act by a First Glass Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. On appeal by him, his conviction was upheld but the sentence of three months' R.I. was converted to a fine of Rs. 25/ - only. Shabbir, the Applicant in Cr. Ref. No. 276 of 1970, was convicted by the trial Magistrate Under Sec. 25(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced to three months' R.I. He appealed against his conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar. Before the appellate court, it was contended on behalf of Shabbir, that the Notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh Under Sec. 4 of the Act, whereby possession of a knife with a blade of more than 10.16 centimeters in length without a licence was prohibited was illegal and unenforceable since it was in conflict with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The contention appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, who consequently made a reference Under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that Shabbir's conviction and sentence be set aside.
(2.) When the reference and the connected revisions came up for hearing before Hamid Husain, J., the validity of the relevant Notifications issued by the State Government Under Sec. 4 of the Act was challenged. The learned single Judge was of the view that the legal questions raised in support of the reference and the revisions were important enough to merit consideration by a larger Bench and consequently he made this reference as a result of which these cases have come up before us.
(3.) The question of law which arises for consideration in these cases has been framed by Mohd. Hamid Husain, J. as follows: Whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh was competent Under Sec. 4 of the Arms Act to regulate the acquisition, possession or the carrying of knives with blades longer than 10.16 centimeters in certain specified areas in the State?;