Order. - This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chamba recom mending that the conviction of Kanhya for manufacturing and for being found in possession of arms without licence, and of Sahnu for being found in possession of arms without licence, and the sentences of fine imposed upon them by a learned first class Magistrate of Chamba be set aside. 2. It appears that on a search of the house of Kanhya, who is a black-smith by profession, two country-made guns and a country-made pistol were recovered. One of the guns belonged to Sahnu, who held a licence for the same but it had expired before the date of its recovery from Kanhyas possession. The other gun belonged to one Phulgari, who held a valid licence for the same. 3. Kanhyas case may be taken up first. He stated that he made the pistol in the time of Raja Ram Singh. The prosecution led no evidence as to when it was manufactured. Section 19 (a) of the Arms Act penalises manufacture of arms, but not retrospectively. The Indian Arms Act was applied to Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order, 1948, which came into force on 25-12-1948. It follows, therefore, that as there is nothing to show that the pistol in question was manufactured by Kanhya after 25-12-1948, his conviction under S. 19 (a) of the Arms Act is unsustainable. 4. Nor could he be convicted alternatively under S. 19 (f) of the Act for being found in possession of the pistol, for previous sanction of the District Magistrate for instituting proceedings against him in respect of this offence, as required by S. 29 of the Act, had not been obtained. 5. Section 29, Arms Act, is subdivided into two portions. The first portion applies to a province, district or place to which S. 32, cl. (2) of Act XXXI [31] of 1860 applied on the date on which the Indian Arms Act came into force. In such places previous sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecuting a person under S. 19 (f), Arms Act, was necessary if the offence was committed within three months from the date on which the Arms Act came into force there, but not thereafter. The learned Government Advocate did not contend that the aforesaid provision of Act XXXI [31] of 1860 was ever applied in Chamba. The learned Government Advocate did not contend that the aforesaid provision of Act XXXI [31] of 1860 was ever applied in Chamba. The first portion of S. 29 is, therefore, not applicable to the present case. Under the second portion if an offence under S. 19 (f) is committed in any part of India not being a district, province, or place to which the aforesaid provision of Act xxxi [31] of 1860 applied at the date when the Arms Act came into force, previous sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecution of a person in respect of the offence is necessary, and that not only where the offence has been committed within three months from the date on which the Arms Act came into force there but for all time to came. If follows, therefore, that no proceedings in Chamba district could, be instituted against any person in respect of an offence punishable under S. 19 (f), Arms Act, without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. No such previous sanction had been obtained in the present case. Kanhyas trial for an offence under S. 19 (f), Arms Act, was, therefore, void as being without jurisdiction. 6. As regards the two guns, it has come in evidence that they had been left with him for repairs. There is nothing in the Arms Act necessitating a repairer to obtain a licence. Section 5 of the Act prohibits unlicensed manufacture, conversion or sale, or the keeping, offering or exposing for sale of any arms, ammunition etc.; but manufacture is not the same thing as repair. Kanhyas conviction was, therefore, not justified under any provision of the Arms Act either in respect of the pistol or in respect of the guns. 7. The other accused, Sahnu, has been convicted and sentenced under S. 19 (f), Arms Act. As in his case too no previous sanction of the District Magistrate had been obtained under S. 29, his trial for that offence was also illegal for reasons recorded above. 8. The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is accepted, the order of the learned first class Magistrate of Chamba dated 19-12-1949 convicting and sentencing the two accused Kanhya and Sahnu, the former under cls. (a) and (f) and the latter under cl. (f) of S. 19, Indian Arms Act, is set aside, and they are acquitted. 8. The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is accepted, the order of the learned first class Magistrate of Chamba dated 19-12-1949 convicting and sentencing the two accused Kanhya and Sahnu, the former under cls. (a) and (f) and the latter under cl. (f) of S. 19, Indian Arms Act, is set aside, and they are acquitted. The fines, if already realised, shall be refunded to them. The pistol shall be confiscated to the Government and the guns restored to their owners, unless they be not entitled to possess them under the Arms Act, in which latter case the guns shall also be confiscated to the Government. This judgment should be brought to the notice of all the District Magistrates of the States of Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur through their respective Governments. Order accordingly.