Summarize the following court judgment. iminal Appeal No. 69 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated December 23	 1960	 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit; Bench) at Delhi in Criminal 'Appeal NO.: 10 D of 1960. WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 23	 1959	 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1694 of 1958. Sarjoo Prasad and K. K. Sinha	 or the appellant in Cr. A. No. 69 of 1961. B. K. Khanna and P. D. Menon.	 for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 69 of 1961. R. K. Garg	 D. P. Singh and section C. Agarwala	 for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 62 of 1960. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal	 for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 62 of 1960. May 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR	 J. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 69 of 1961 Jia Lal Was searched by the Delhi Police on April 15	 1959	 and was found to be in possession of ' an ' English pistol for Which he held no licence. He was then prosecuted for an offence under section 20 of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (XI of 1878)	 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ' 867 before the Additional Sessions Judge; Delhi who convicted him under section 19 (f) of the Act	 and sentenced him to rigorous 'imprisonment for nine 	months. No sanction for the prosecution had been obtained as required by section 29 of the Act. the appellant then took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Punjab which confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to 4 1/2 months rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment that this appeal by special leave is directed. Bhagwana was searched by the Saharanpur Police on August 6	 1956	 and was found to be in possession of a country made pistol and four cartridges for which he held no licence. He was prosecuted before the City Magistrate	 Saharanpur under a. 19(f) of the Act and was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. No sanction was obtained for his prosecution	 obviously because under section 29 of the Act it is not required when the offence are committed in certain areas and Saharanpur is within those areas. The appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge	 Saharanpur but the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appellant then took the; matter in revision to the High Court of Allahabad which rejected the same but granted certificate under article 134(1) of the Constitution. This 	 is how this appeal comes before us. Though the two appeals arise out of two different prosecutions un. connected with each other	 they were heard together as the same questions of law arise for determination in both. The first question that arises for our decision is whether a. 29 of the Act is unconstitutional and void as contravening article 14	 in that it requires sanction for prosecution for offences under the Act	 868 when they axe committed in some areas	 but not in others. Section 29 of the Act is as follows: "Where an offence punishable under section 19	 clause (f)	 has been committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into force in any State	 district or place to which section 32	 clause 2 of Act XXXI of 1860 applies at such date	 or where such an offence has been committed in. any part of India not being such a district	 State or place	 no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of such offence without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the district or in a presidency town	 of the Commissioner of police. " For a correct understanding of the true scope of the section	 it is necessary to refer to the history of the Legislation relating to it. The earliest enactment dealing with this subject is the Arms and Ammunition and Military Stores Act 18 of 1841 which came into force on August 30	 1841	 and that prohibited the export of arms and ammunition out of the territories belonging to the East India Company and enacted certain prohibitions as regards the storing of ammunition. This Act was repealed by Act 13 of 1852. After the uprising against the British rule in 1857	 the Government felt that a more stringent law was required for preventing insurrections and maintaining order and so a new Act was passed	 Act 28 of 1857. This Act is a comprehensive one dealing with many matters not dealt with in previous legislation	 and contains elaborate provisions as regards the manufacture	 import	 sale	 possession and use of arms and ammunition. of particular relevance to the present discussion is P. 24 of this Act which empowered the Governor 869 General to order general search for arms and ammunition in any district. In exercise of the power conferred by this section	 the Governor General issued a notification on December 21	 1858	 ordering a general search and seizure of arms in in the territories north of the Jumna and Ganga then known as North Western Provinces. The reason for this was that it was this territory that was the main seat of the disturbances of 1857. Act 28 of 1857 was a temporary Act which was to be in force for a period of two years and after some extentions it finaly lapsed on October 1	 1 60. On that date a new Act	 Arms and Ammunition Act 31 of 1860 came into force. This statute contains in addition to what was enacted in Act 28 of 1857	 certain new provisions	 of which a. 32 is material for our discussion. It is as follows: " 'Clause 1. It shall be lawful for the Governor General of India in Council or for the Executive Government of any Presidency or for any Lieutenant Governor	 or with the sanction of the Gevernor General in Council for the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of any Province	 District or place subject to their administration respectively	 when. ever it shall appear necessary for the public 	safety	 to order that any Province	 District	 or place shall be disarmed. "Clause 2. In every such Province	 District	 or place as well as in any Province	 District	 or place in which an order for a general search for arms has been issued and is still in operation under Act XXVIII of 1857	 it shall not be lawful for any person to have in his possession any arms of the description mentioned in section 6 of this Act	 or any percussion caps	 sulphur	 gunpowder or other ammunition without a licence. 870 This Act 		a	 in was repealed	 in 1878	and the present Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878) was enacted. Now examining section 29 in the light of the history of the legislation as aforesaid	 it will be seen that it makes a distinction between the areas to which section 32 of Act 31 of 1860 applied and the other areas. The former included territories which had been disarmed under orders of the Governor General in accordance	 with cl. (1) and those in which a general search had been ordered under cl. (2) which under the notification of December 1858 comprised the territories north of the Jumna and Ganga. Section 29	 provides	.that for prosecution for offences committed within the rem to which section 32 applied	 No. sanction was required but suoh sanction was required	 for a prosecution for the same offence when committed in 'other areas. The point for decision is whether this	 discrimination which is hit by article	 14 of th Constitution. Now the principles governing the application of Art 14 are 	Well	 settled and there is no need to restate them. Article	 14 prohibits hostile legislation directed against individuals or groups of individuals	 but it does not forbid reasonable Classiit scation. And in order that a classifcation might be valid	 it must rest on an intelligent 	differentia which distinguishes it from others and that further that must ' have	 a reasonable relation to the ob ject of the legislation. There can be a valid classi fication based on a geographical differentia	 but even then	 that differentia must be	 	pertinent to the object of the legislation. The short question before decision the are fore is whether the differentiation between the territories north of	 the; Jumna and Ganga on theme band and the other Territories on the other	 has any relevance to the object of 871 the legislation. As already Pointed out this differen tiation came to be made as a result of the political situation during 1857	 and has reference to the fact ' that the largest opposition to the British Grovernment came from the Taluqdars to the north of the Jumna and Ganga. But more	 than a ventury has since elapsed and the conditions have so radically	 changed that if is impossible now to sustain any distinction between the territories	 north of the Jumna and Ganga and the other territories on any ground pertinent to the object of the law in question and on the well known principles differentiation is discrimination repugnant to article 14. That was the the view taken by	 the Allhabad High Court in Mehar Chand vs State(1) and we are in agreement with it. The correctness of this decision on this point has been assailed	 before us. On this conclusion two questions arise	for decision: (i) Is a. 29	 omitting that part	 of it which" contravenes article 14	 valid	 and are the prosecutions in the instant cases bad for want of sanctions thereunder; and (ii) if a. 29 is void in toto whether a. 19 also 'becomes void and unenforceable. On the first question our attention has	 been drawn to two decisions of the High Court of Allahabad where this Point has been considered. in Mehar Chand 's case (1) already referred to	 after holding that the distinction made in section 29 between offences committed in territories to the north of the Jamuna and Ganga and those committed elsewhere was repugned to Art	 14	 the learned Judges stated as its consequence that sanction for prosecution under the Act was necessary in all cases. But this decision was overruled by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhai Singh vs The State(2) (1) A.I.R. (1959) All. 660. (2) A.I.R. (1960) All 369. 872 where it was held that the effect of the finding that the section was in part unconstitutional was to render it void in its entirety and that accordingly no sanction was necessary for instituting prosecutions under the Act. The respondent relies on this decision	 and contends that the present proceedings are not illegal for want of sanction. The position of the appellants in the two appeals in relation to this question is somewhat different. In Criminal Appeal 69 of 1961 the appellant comes from an area which is not to the north of the Jumna and Ganga and under s.29 sanction would be required for his prosecution but the appellant in Criminal Appeal 62 of 1960 comes from an area north of the Jumna and Ganga and no sanction would be required under that section for his prosecution. The arguments of learned counsel on this question therefore proceeded on somewhat different lines. Mr. Sarju Prasad appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal 69 of 1961 contended that the decision in Bhai Singh 's case (1) was erroneous	 that the fact that the section was invalid in its operation as regards territories to the north of the Jumna and Ganga did not render it invalid in its application to the other territories	 as the two parts of the section were distinct and severable and that on the principles enunciated by this Court in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union of India (2)	 that portion of the section which requires sanction must be held to be valid. Mr. Garg appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 62 of 1960 also contended that sanction was required for prosecution under the Act and his argument in support of the contention may thus be stated It "the portion of section 29 873 which offends article 14 is 	 struck out	 what remains will read as follows: "Where an offence under section 19 clause (f) has been committed in any part of India; No proceedings shall be instituted against any	 person in respect of such of offence without the previous sanction of the Magis trate of the District. " The section as thus expurgated is complete in itself and in harmony with the rest of the Act. The appropriate rule of interpretation applicable to this situation is thus stated in Chamarbaugwalla 's Case "On the other hand	 if they are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid	 what remains is in itself a complete code independent of the rest	 then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest has become unenforceable. " (p. 951). On this test	 the part of section 29 which requires sanction must be held to be severable from the portion	 under which no sanction is required	 and therefore valid. This contention must fail for the simple reason	 that if accepted it must result in defeating the intention clearly and unequivocally expressed in the section	 that no sanction is required for prosecution for offences committed north of the Jumna and Ganga. It will be opposed to all recognised canons of interpretation	 to construe a statute as forbidding what it expressly authorises. We cannot therefore so read the section as to require sanction for prosecution for offences in the areas north of the Jumna and Ganga. When once this conclusion is reached it is difficult to accept (1) ; 874 the contention	 of Mr. Sarju Prasad that the section insofar as it requires sanction for prosecution for offences committed in territories other than those to the north of the Jumna and Ganga is severable from the rest and that to that extent the law is valid. If this contention is correct	 it must necessarily result in discrimination between persons who commit offences in the territories to the north of the Jumna and Ganga and those who commit the same offences elsewhere in that while the latter cannot be prosecuted without sanctions the former can be. It will then be open 'to the persons who are charged with offences committed to the north of the Jumna and Ganga to assail the law on the	 ground that it discriminates against them. 	 and there can be no answer	 to it as we have held that	 the classification made by the section is not valid. The fact is that it is inherent in the very vice of discrimination that it is incapable.of being broken up into what is good and what is bad. The gravemen of the charge that article 14 has been contravened is that it makes an irrational distinc tion among persons who are similarly circumstanced and where such a charge is well founded the section must in its entirety be struck down. We are accordingly of the opinion that on our conclusion that the section is repugnant to article 14 in that it discriminates between the persons who commit offence in areas north of the Jumna and Ganga and those who commit the same offences elsewhere	 the whole of it ought. to to be held to be bad. It is next contended that if section 29 is void in its entirety	 section 19(f) of the Act should also be held to be void	 as both these provisions form integral parts of a single scheme and must stand or fall together. 'it is	 argued that the policy behind section 29 was manifestly. 	 to give protection to innocent subjects	 against	 frivolous and	 vexatious prose cution	 and that sanction under that section must 875 therefore be regarded as one of the essential elements	 which go to make the offence. Support for this contention was also sought in the statement of objects and reasons	 made when the measure 'was introduced in the Legislature	 wherein it was said that ample safeguards were provided "to prevent this prohibition pressing unfairly against respectable persons". It was strongly pressed on us that in view of the above statement. it ought to be inferred that the Legislature would not have enacted section 19	 if it had known that section 29 was void	 and on that the conclusion must follow that the two sections are inseverable. In support of this argument reliance was placed on certain observations in Daris vs Wallace (1) and Lemke vs Farmers ' Grain Company (2). In Davis Wallace (1) the point for decision was whether when a provision which is in the nature of an exception in held to be unconstitutional	 the main provision which it is intended to qualify can be enforced in its own terms. In answering it in the negative the Court observed : "Here the excepting provision was in the statute when it was enacted	 and there can be no doubt that the legislature intended that the meaning of the other provisions should be taken as restricted accordingly. Only with that restricted meaning did they receive the legislative sanction which was essential to make them part of the statute law of the State '; and no other authority is competent to give them a larger application." In Lemke Farmers Grain Company (2)	 a law of North Dakota was assailed as unconstitutional on the ground that it was one on interstate commerce which the State Legislature could not enact. One of the contentions raised was that there were certain provisions in the Act which could be sustained as within the competence of State Legislature In rejecting this contention the Court (1) ; (1921) 257 U.S. 477 ; 	 329. (2) (1921) 258 V.S. 506 876 observed : 	It is insisted that the price fixing feature of the statute may be ignored	 and its other regulatory features of inspection and grading sustained if not contrary to valid Federal regulations of the same subject. But the features of this act	 clearly regulatory of interstate commerce	 are essential and vital parts of the general plan of the statute to control the purchase of grain and to	 determine the profit at which it may be sold. It is apparent that	 without these sections	 the State legislature would not have passed the act. Without their enforcement the plan and scope of the act fails of accomplishing its manifest purpose. We have no authority to eliminate an essential feature of the law for the purpose of saving the constitutionality of parts of it. " It is contended that on the rule of construction laid down above	 a. 19 must be held to be inseverable from section 29	 and must be struck down. We are unable to agree. The contention that sanction under section 29 should be regarded as an essential ingredient of the offence under a. 19 proceeds on a misconception as to the true scope of that section. The scheme of the act is that it imposes certain obligations and breaches thereof are made offences for which penalties are prescribed. These provisions pertain to the domain of substantive law. Thus with reference to the	 matters involved in this appeal	 sections 14 and 15	 enact that no person shall have possession of arms	 and ammunition	 specified therein	 without a licence	 and under section 19(f) a contravention of these sections is an offence punishable	 as provided therein. The offence is complete	 when the conditions mentioned in sections 14 and 15 are satisfied	 and sanction is thus not one of the elements which enter into the constitution of the offence. Then comes section 29. It is purely procedural. It comes 877 into operation only when there is an offence already completed. It cannot therefore be regarded as an ingredient of the offence	 which is" to be punished under a. 19 (f) . This must be further clear from the fact that offences under the Act are punishable under a. 19	 without sanction under a. 29	 when they are committed in the territories to the north of the Jumna and Ganga. It cannot be contended that the contents of as. 14 and 15	 for example 	 which are punishable under a. 19(f) differ according as they are to be applied to areas north of the Jumna and Ganga or elsewhere. We agree with the appellants that the object a. 29 was to give protection to subjects against harassment. That appears clearly on the reading of the section. There was some argument before us as to whether the statement of objects and reasons relied on for the appellants is admissible in evidence. It is well settled that proceedings 'of the Legislature cannot be called in aid for constructing a Section	 vide Administrator General of Bengal	 vs Prem Lal Mullick Krishna Ayyangar vs Nellapuru mal (2). "It is clear" observed Lord Wrightin Assam Railway & Trading Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioner (3) "that the languageof a Minister of the Crown in proposing in Parliament a measure which eventually becomes law is inadmissible. " The question whether the statement of objects and reasons admissible in evidence for construing the statue arose directly for decision In Aswini Kumar Ghosh vs Arabinda Bose (4)	 and it was held that it was not. It was argued that the history of a legislation Would be admissible for ascertaining the legislative intent when the question is one of severability. That is so as held by this Court in B.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla 's case (5) at pages 951 952. (1) (1895) 221.A.107	118. (2) (1919) L.R. 47 I.A. 33	 42. (3) ; 	 458. (4) (1953) S.C.R. I. 28. (5) ; 878 But the statement of objects and reasons is not a part of the history of the legislation. It is merely an expression of what according to the mover of the Bill are the scope and purpose of the legislation. But the question of severability has to be judged on the intention of the legislature as expressed in the Bill as passed	 and to ascertain if the statement of the mover of the Bill is no more admissible than a speech made on the floor of the House. It may be mentioned that there are observations in some of the	 judgments of this Court judgments of this that the statement of objects and reasons but for Act right be admissible not for construing the Act but for ascertaining the conditions which prevailed when the legislation was enacted. Vide the State of West Bengal vs Subodh Gopal Bose (1)	 M. K. Ranganathan vs Government of Madras (2)	 A. Thangal Kunju Mudaliar vs M. Venkitachalam Potti (3) and Commissioner of Income tax	 Madhya Pradesh V. Sm. Sodra Devi It is sufficient for the purpose of this case to say that the statement of objects and reasons is sought to be used by the appellants not for ascertaining the conditions which existed at the time When the statute was passed but for showing that the legislature would not have enacted the law without the protection afforded by section 29. In our opinion it is clearly not ' admissible for this purpose. But even apart from the statement of objects	 it is clear on the face of the section that it has been enacted with a	 view to giving protection to the subjects. But is this sufficient to support the conclusion that the legislature would not have enacted section 19 if it had known that a. 29 was void ? It is this that the appellant has to establish before he (1) ; 	 628. (2) ; 	 385. (3) ; 	 1237. (4) ; 879 can succeed	 and the policy behind a. 29 is only one element in the decision of it. Now it appears to us ' that what is really determinative of the question is what has been already stated that section 19 is a substantive provision	 whereas section 29 is an adjectival one	 and in general	 the invalidity of a procedural enactment cannot be held to affect the validity of a substantive provision. It might be possible to conceive of oases in which the invalidity of a procedural section or rule might so react on substantive provision	 as to render it ineffective. But such cases must be exceptional. And we see nothing in the present statute to take it out of the general rule. On the other hand	 the paramount intention behind the law was to punish certain offences. No doubt section 29 was enacted with a view to give some measure of protection to the subjects. But if the legislature had been told that section 29 would be bad	 can there be any doubt as to whether it would have enacted the statute without section 29 ? The consequence of withdrawing the protection of that section is only that the accused will have to take up his trial in a court	 but there ultimately justice will be done. Therefore if the choice was given to the legislature between allowing an offence against the State to go unpunished	 and failing to give protection to a subject against frivolous prosecution	 it is not difficult to see where it would have fallen. We cannot	 be mistaken if we conclude that the intention of the legislature was to enact the law	 with section 29 if that was possible	 without it	 if necessary. And that is also the inference that is suggested by the provision in section 29	 exempting certain areas from its operation. The American authorities cited for the appellants do not require detailed consideration	 as the principles laid down therein have been approve by this Court in Chamarbaugwalla 's case (1) at pages 950 951. The question is only one of application (1) ; 880 of the rules of interpretation laid down therein to particular legislation. It is however worthy of note that in Davis V. Wallace (1) as well as Lemke vs Farmers Grain Company the point for decision was to what the effect was of holding that a substantive provision in a law was unconstitutional	 on another substantive law in the same statute. We are aware that it has some times been stated that a distinction should be made in the matter ' of severability between Criminal and Civil Laws	 and that a penal statute must be construed strictly against the State. But there are numerous decisions in which the same rules of construction have been applied in deciding a question of severability of a Criminal statute as in the case of a Civil Law	 and on principle it is difficult to see any good ground for the distinction. "Perhaps the moist that can be said" ' says Sutherland	 for the distinction between criminal and civil statutes is that the penal nature of a statute may be a make weight on the side of inseparability" Vide Statutory Construction Vol. 2 p. 197 para 2418. In the present case the fact that a. 29 is a procedural and not a substantive enactment is sufficient to turn. the scale heavily in favour of the State. On a consideration of the scheme of the Act	 and its provisions	 we are of opinion that section 29 is severable from the other portions of the Act	 and that its invalidity does not affect the validity of 19. In Criminal Appeal 69 of 1961 a contention was also raised that the pistol of which the appellant was 'in possession was not in a fit condition to be effectively used	 and it bad no chamber	 and it therefore did not fall within the definition of 'Arms ' in section 4(1) of the Act. There is no force in this (1) ; 7: ; 329	 (2) ; ; 881 contention which is accordingly rejected. In Criminal Appeal 62 of 1960 an argument was advanced that the State had launched prosecutions under the De Act	 some with	 and others without ' sanction	 and that was discrimination bit by article 14. There is no substance in this contention	 which also is rejected. In the result both these appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act	 1878	 provided that for prosecution for an offence under section 19(f) of the Act com mitted in the territories north of the jumna and Ganga no sanction was required but sanction was required for the pro. section if the offence was committed in other areas. j was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm in Delhi	 and though sanction under section 29 was necessary	 he was tried and convicted without obtaining such sanction. B was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm in Saharanpur and as no sanction under section 29 was necessary for his prosecution he was tried and convicted without obtaining any sanction. The respondents contended that section 29 offended article 14 of the Constitution and was unconstitutional. j contended that even if section 29 was invalid in its operation as regards territories to the. 	North of the jurnna and Ganga it was not invalid in its 865 application to the other territories as the parts of section 29 were separate and severable. B contended that if the portion of section 29 which offended article 14 was struck down the remaining portion was complete in itself and required sanction for prosecution in all cases	 and that if s.29 was void in toto s.19 could not stand and also become void and unenforceable. Held	 that section 29 Arms Act offended article 14 and was unconstitutional and as such no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of either j or B. The differentiation between the territories north of the jumna and Ganga and the other territories had no relevance now to the object of the legislation. The differentiation had come into being an account of the fact that the largest opposition to the British Government in 1857 had come from the people to the north of the jumna and Ganga and they had been disarmed. But now after more than a century conditions have changed and the distinction could not be sustained on any ground pertinent to the object 	of the law in question. Mehar Chand vs State	 A.I.R. (1959) All. 660	 approved. Held	 further	 that it was not permissible to strike out only the offending words from section 29 and to read the section as requiring sanction for prosecution for offences in areas north of the jamna and Ganga. The section could. not be construed as for bidding what it expressly authorised. Nor could the section insofar as it required sanction for prosecution for offences committed in other territories be severed from the rest and held valid as that would necessarily again result in discrimination. The entire section 29 must be struck down. Bhai Singh vs State	 A.I.R. (1960) All. 369. approved. Chamarbaugwalla vs Union of India	 ; 	 referred to. Held	 further	 that section 29 was severable from the other	 provisions of the Act and that its invalidity did not affect the validity of section 19. Section 19 was a substantive provision providing punishment for violation of sections 14 and 15 and section 29 was merely procedural and in general the invalidity of a procedural provision could not be held to affect the validity of a substantive provision. There was nothing in the Arm Act to take it out of the general rule. Section 29 was intended for giving protection to the subjects against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions but sanction was not one of the elements of the under offence s	 19(f). It could not be said that the legislature 866 would not have enacted the ' law without the; protection afforded by section 29. Davis vs Wallace	 (1921)257 U.S. 477; ; and Lemka Parmers ' Grain Company; 	 ; 66 L. Ed. 458	 referred to.