This appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 3rd October, 1968 passed by A. D. M. Budaun acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 25, Arms Act.

The facts of the case can briefly be stated thus :-

On 31 March, 1968 near about 10 a.m. Ram Lal, Constable (P.W. 1), was on patrol duty in the locality know as Sarkari ganj, district Budaun. He received information through an informer that the appellant was coming from the side of the railway station and had a kripan in his possession for which he had no licence. Ram Lal, Constable, therefore, picked up Munne (P.W. 2) and Afzal (P.W. 3) and then proceeded towards the railway station. A little distance ahead they noticed the appellant coming from the side of railway station. On seeing the police people he stopped and wanted to turn back. He was however surrounded by Ram Lal and the accompanying persons and was arrested. On a search being taken he was found in possession of a Kripan for which he had no licence.

A formal report was lodged by Ram Lal, Constable, at Police Station Kotwali, Budaun on 31st March, 1968 at 11.05 a.m. A case under Section 25, Arms Act was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted for his prosecution.

2. The appellant in his statement in the trial Court denied the prosecution case and pleaded enmity with Ram Lal. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 25, Arms Act was not made out beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and in the result acquitted him. Feeling aggrieved against it the State has come up in appeal before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel on either side and have also perused the record of the case.

Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. According to the learned counsel the appeal having been presented before the Registrar on a working day, which was not the last date of limitation, the appeal was not validly presented. In the particular circumstance of this case, however, it is not necessary to enter into a discussion of this academic point. The appeal can be disposed of on different grounds.

3. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court acquitted the respondent only on the ground that the Kripan was not covered under Section 25. Arms Act.

A perusal of Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act would reveal that it relates to licences for acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunition. Section 4 of the Act states that if the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstance prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in public interest that acquisition, possession or carrying of arms, other than fire arms, should also be regulated, it may by notification in the official Gazette, direct that Section 4 shall apply to the area specified in the 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 unless he holds in that behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Rule 3 of the Arms Rules, 1962 states that for the purposes of the Act and the Rules "Arms" or "Ammunitions" shall be of the categories specified in columns 2 and 3 of Schedule I. Item 5 of Schedule I appended to the rules makes a mention of 'Kripans'. A cumulative reading of Section 4 of the Act, Rule 3 of the Rules and Item 5 of Schedule 5 leads to the conclusion that possession of Kripan cannot be an offence unless a notification has been issued by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Act.

4. Now a perusal of the record indicates that there is no mention of any notification of the aforesaid nature either in the first information report or in the charge-sheet submitted by the police. A note was su