No 77 of 1972
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
section K Dhingra for the petitioner
Dilip Sinha and G section Chatterjee for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
The District Magistrate Howrah passed on June 12 1971 the impugned order of detention under sub section
1 read with sub section
3 of section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act 1970 directing the petitioner s detention thereunder
The order stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On June 13 1971 the petitioner was accordingly arrested and detained in Dum Dum Central Jail
676 The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest read as follows  1 On 17 8 70 at about 0200 hours you and your associates Bhaja alias Tarapada Ghosh Bablu Kartic and others attacked the members of RG Party who were on duty near Jatadhari Park by hurling bombs towards them
When chased by them you and your associates again hurled bombs towards them and managed to escape and thereby disturbed public order
2 On 10 4 71 at about 1600 hours you and your associates being armed with sword assaulted one Basudeb Laha of 5618 Banarjee Bagan Lane
at Sambhu Halder Lane near Jatadhari Park causing injuries on his person
When objected by the members of the public you also terrorised them by brandishing the sword
3 On 1 5 71 at 1500 hours you and your associates Tapan Kartic and others being armed with bombs and other deadly weapons demanded money from one Banshi Show of 28 Haraganj Road PS Malipanchghora
When refused you and your associates assaulted him
The local people and the neighbouring shop keepers objected
At this you and your associates became more violent and terrorised them by throwing bombs towards them
Con sequently they became panicky and fled away
Sub section
1 read with sub s 3 of section of the Act authorises inter alia a District Magistate to direct detention of any person in respect of whom be is satisfied that such detention should be ordered with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the security of the State of West Bengal or the maintenance of public order
Sub section
2 of section 3 contains a special definition of the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order to mean the acts enumerated in cls
a to e thereof
d which is the only relevant clause for purposes of this petition provides as follows d committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more or any offence under the or the  where the commission of such offence disturbed or is likely to disturb public order
 677 It is not disputed that the petitioner s alleged activities set out in grounds  1  and 3 of the said grounds of detention fell under cl
d being offences under the  and also being such that they did or were likely to disturb public order
The only contention raised for our determination was that activities set out in ground No 2 namely causing injuries with a sword
would constitute an offence under section 324 of the Penal Code an offence neither punishable with death nor life imprisonment nor imprisonment for a term of seven years
Therefore ground No 2 would be it was urged a ground which would not fall under the said definition and would therefore be an extraneous ground rendering the impugned order invalid
The contention in our view has no substance as the offence alleged in ground No 2 would fall under cl
d of section 1 2 of the Act inasmuch as it will be one punishable under the  LIV of 1959
Under section 21 c of the  the word arms  inter alia means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence and includes firearms sharpedged and other deadly weapons
A sword is thus arms I within the meaning of this definition
3 of the Act then prohibits among other things possession of firearms or ammunition except under a licence issued under the Act or the rules made thereunder
So far as arms other than firearms are concerned section 4 empowers the Central Government if it is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that acquisition
possession or carrying of arms other than firearms should also be regulated it may by notification direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in such notification and thereupon no person shall acquire have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or description as may be specified in that notification except under a licence issued under the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder
Once therefore such a notification is issued under the Act or the rules made thereunder and that notification specifies any arms eg a sword possession of or carrying such a sword without licence in the specified area would be an offence under the 
25 1 b provides that whoever acquires has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as have been specified in that notification in contravention of that section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three 1 years or with fine or with both
It however appears that no such notification as contemplated by section 4 of the 1959 Act has been issued
But in 1923 such a 678 notification bearing reference No Political Police Department Notification No 787 PL dated March 9 1923 was issued under section 15 of the earlier Indian  XI of 1878 which was in terms similar to section 4 of the present Act
The question is whether Act XI of 1878 having been repealed the said notification issued under section 15 thereof can still be said to be operative  Sec
461 of the repealed the preceding Act of 1878
Its sub section
2 provides that notwithstanding such repeal and without prejudice to sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act X of 1897 a licence granted under the repealed Act and in force immediately before the commencement of the new Act shall continue unless sooner revoked for the unexpired period for which it had been granted or renewed
462 thus saves only licences issued under the 
Sec 6b of the General Clauses Act however provides that where any Central Act or regulation made after the commence ment of the Act repeals any earlier enactment then unless a different intention appears such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered hereunder
24 next provides that where any Central Act is repealed and re enacted with or without modification then unless it is otherwise expressly provided any notification issued under such repealed Act shall so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions re enacted continue in force and be deemed to have been made under the provisions so re enacted unless it is superseded by any notification or order issued under the provisions so re enacted
The new Act nowhere contains an intention to the contrary signifying that the operation of the repealed Act or of an notification issued thereunder was not to continue
Further the new Act re enacts the provisions of the earlier Act and section 4 in particular as already stated has provisions practically identical to those of section 15 of the earlier Act
The combined effect of sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act is that the said notification of 1923 issued under section 15 of the Act of 1878 not only continued to operate but has
to be deemed to have been enacted under the new Act
Possession of arms such as a sword without a licence or contrary to the terms and conditions of such a licence would thus be an offence punishable with imprisonment under the 
Though the possession of and carrying a sword were alleged to have been committed in 1970 that is after the repeal of the Arms Act 1878 the said notification of 1923 issued under the repealed Act would despite its repeal continue to be in force and its provisions would be deemed to have been enacted under the new Act by virtue of section 24 of the General Clauses Act
679 This was the construction placed upon these two sections by this Court in the Chief Inspector of Mines vs Lala Karam Chand Thapar1 where the question as to the meaning of section 24 of the General Clauses Act arose
In that case the directors of a colliery company and its managing agents were prosecuted under the for violation of Coal Mines Regulations of_ 1926 made under Mines Act 1923 which was repealed by 1952 Act
Repelling the contention that the prosecution in respect of the violation of those Regulations made under the repealed Act was unauthorised and invalid the Court construed section 24 of the General  Clauses Act to mean that when an earlier Act is repealed by a later Act which re enacted the provisions of the earlier Act Regulations framed under the repealed Act continue in force and are deemed to have been made under the provisions so re enacted and must be so construed as to have continuity of force and are to be regarded as laws in force at the date of the offence within the meaning of article 203 of the Constitution
In that case the breach of those Regulations took place before the commencement of the new Act
Even then the prosecution under the new Act was held to be valid on the ground that the Regulations were deemed to have been made under the new Act
In the present case the offence of being in possession of and carrying a sword without licence took place after the commencement of the new Act of 1959
The said notification by virtue of section 24 of the General Clauses Act having to be deemed to have been made under section 4 of the  the notification was in force on the date of the alleged offence
The offence thus fell under the  and that be ing so acts set out in ground No 2 were covered by cl
d of section 32 of the Act
Consequently that ground cannot be said to be extraneous to the Act
This being the only contention arising for our consideration and it having failed the petition fails and is dismissed
KBN Petition dismissed


Summary:
The combined effect of section 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act is that a notification of 1923 issued under section 15 of the Arms Act 1878 prohibiting the acquisition possession or carrying of arms other than fire arms without a licence not only continued to operate but has to be deemed to have been enacted under the  which repealed and re enacted the provisions of the earlier Act
The 1959 Act nowhere contains an intention to the contrary signifying that the operation of the repealed Act or of a notification issued thereunder was not to continue
678C F A sword is arms within the meaning of the definition of arms  in section 21c of the 
In the present case though the offence of being in possession and carrying a sword without licence took place after the commencement of the new Act of 1959 the notification issued under the Act of 1878 was in
force by virtue of section 24 of the General Clauses Act on the date of the alleged offence
The offence thus fell under the arms Act 1959 and that being so the acts set out in the grounds of detention served on the petitioner were covered by clause d of section 32 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act 1970
677D H 678G H 679F