The challenge is against the concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of conviction in C.C. No. 894/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 820/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. The conviction was under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Sentence was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:-

On 06.07.2001 at about 10.30 pm, the accused was found threatening the public by showing a sword at Maruvakkadu - Velankanni Church and thereby committed the offence. Before the trial court, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and Exts.P1 and P2 were marked and MOI sword was identified. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also not successful. Hence the revision petition.

3. The point canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that whether brandishing a sword can be considered as an offence inviting conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel also submitted before me that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution.

4. There is a concurrent finding in respect of possession of sword. A re-appreciation of evidence by this Court is not warranted in that respect.

5. The next aspect to be considered is whether the possession and brandishing a sword will invite an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Section 2(c) of the Arms Act defines arms:

""arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offences, or defence, and includes firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons."

6. The penal provision under which revision petitioner was convicted was section 27, which states as follows:-

"Punishment for using arms, etc-(1) whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death."

7. Now in this case sword is the weapon used for committing the offence. As per schedule I framed under Rule 3 of the Arms Rules it can be seen that as item No. V therein the description of arms other than fire arms is given as follows :

"Sharp-edged and deadly weapons, namely: Swords (including sword-sticks), daggers, bayonets, spears (including; lances and javelins), battle-axes, knives (including Kirpans and Khukries) and other such weapons with blades longer than 9" or wider than 2" other than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or industrial purposes, steel batton, "Zipo" and other such weapons called 'life preservers', machinery for making arms, other than category II, and any other arms which the Central Government may notify under section 4 of the Act."

8. Naturally, the sword which is marked as MO 1 in this case will come under the purview of an 'arm'. But the point to be considered is whether for an arm under consideration a licence is required as per Section 4 of the Act. The licence is required only if there is a notification regulating the ac