Summarize the following court judgment. 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 02.00 hours	 you and your associates Bhaja alias Tarapada Ghosh	 Bablu	 Kartic and others attacked the members of R.G. 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 16.00 hours	 you and your associates being 'armed with sword assaulted one Basudeb Laha of 56/18	 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 15.00 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	 P.S. 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 2(1) (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	 e.g. 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. 46(1) 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. 46(2) thus saves only licences issued under the . Sec. 6(b) 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 Thapar	(1) 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 20(3) 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 3(2) 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. K.B.N. Petition dismissed.

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 2(1)(c) 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 3(2) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act	 1970. [677D H; 678G H; 679F]