JUDGMENT 1. These are four References by the Extra-Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, u/s 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused in each case is a Sikh, who was arrested wearing a kirpan in one case the blade is less than nine inches in length, in the others it is over that length. 2. We do not consider it necessary to issue notices on the parties in these case, which will only cause them unnecessary expense. We need only now return the records to the learned Magistrate with a direction that he should read carefully the sections of the Indian Arms Act and Rules applicable to the cases, as well as the provisions of the Calcutta Police Act mentioned by him and the judgments in the cases Bishan Singh v. Emperor (1924) ILR 51 Cal. 573 (wrongly cited as 51 C.W.N. 573 by the learned Magistrate) and Kripal Singh v. Emperor (1923) ILR 50 Cal. 912, cited by him and follow them. We have recently had occasion more than once to point out to Presidency Magistrates that Section 432 does not give them power to refer points of law settled by decisions of this Court, where the Magistrate doubts the correctness of those decisions. This will not of course affect consideration of the question of the effect of any subsequent changes in the law on such decisions. 3. We do not think it will prejudice the accused if we point out some errors of the learned Magistrate. 4. Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act forbids possession or control of arms contrary to the provisions of Section 14 and Section 15. 5. Section 14 has nothing to do with daggers (unless they are military stores). Section 15 only applies to arms referred to in Clause 2 of Schedule II or notified under Clause 3 of Schedule II to the Indian Arms Rules. The position is explained in the note to para. 24C, of the Bengal Arms Manual (at p. 146), which gives the terms of the notification bringing Section 15 into force in Bengal. 6. Section 19(e) forbids going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13, which relates to all arms. Incidentally, Section 29 does not require sanction for prosecution for an offence punishable u/s 19(e). 24C, of the Bengal Arms Manual (at p. 146), which gives the terms of the notification bringing Section 15 into force in Bengal. 6. Section 19(e) forbids going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13, which relates to all arms. Incidentally, Section 29 does not require sanction for prosecution for an offence punishable u/s 19(e). In these cases the charges are u/s 19(f) and sanction has been given; it appears, however, in fact, that the prosecution case is that the accused in each of these cases was "going armed." 7. The exemption in item 3(vi) of Schedule II to the Indian Arms Rules had effect only within the area specified in the first column, viz., the Punjab and Delhi Province. The exemption for the rest of British India is given in item 1 of the schedule. It covers all arms except those mentioned in Clause 2, and according to Clause 3, covers all prohibitions and directions, provided that the Central Government may retain any or all of them by notification. [The functions of the Central Government have been entrusted to Provincial Governments by notification u/s 124(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935]. 8. Bishan Singh v. Emperor (supra) decides that certain articles alleged to have been cooking or hunting knives are daggers and therefore "arms" within the definition in Section 4 of the Act. It does not appear that anyone in these present cases disputes that the "kirpans" are arms. The claims are that they are exempted arms. The question of exemption of the knives in Bishan Singh's case, considered as "arms," was never raised nor discussed. 9. The learned Magistrate refers to Government of Bengal letter No. 482 PL, dated April 2, 1922. No copy of this appears to be on any of the records; it is also apparently referred to in Kripal Singh's case. Its effect (if still in force) has to be considered as regards the kirpan under nine inches in length. The weapon in Kripal Singh's case was over nine inches in length and the effect of the letter was not directly in issue in that case. The Magistrate should give due weight to the opinion expressed therein on this point, however. Its effect (if still in force) has to be considered as regards the kirpan under nine inches in length. The weapon in Kripal Singh's case was over nine inches in length and the effect of the letter was not directly in issue in that case. The Magistrate should give due weight to the opinion expressed therein on this point, however. Finally, we may add that the Commissioner of Police's notification of October 24, 1946, is, we believe, an annual one and from the quotation of the 1922 notification given in the judgment of Kripal Singh's case, appears to be identical in terms with the earlier notification then considered.