JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - These are three connected cases in which an identical question of law arises for consideration and we consequently propose to dispose them of by this common judgment. These cases which should normally have been heard by a learned single Judge have been heard by a Division Bench as a result of a reference to a larger Bench made by our brother Hamid Hussain, J. in the circumstances set out below: The Applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 2178 of 1970 was convicted by a First Class Magistrate, Allahabad, u/s 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act-and sentenced to a term of six months' RI. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned First Temporary Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Ayub, the Applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 1443 of 1970, was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 25(1)(b) of the Act by a First Glass Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. On appeal by him, his conviction was upheld but the sentence of three months' R.I. was converted to a fine of Rs. 25/- only. Shabbir, the Applicant in Cr. Ref. No. 276 of 1970, was convicted by the trial Magistrate u/s 25(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced to three months' R.I. He appealed against his conviction and sentence before the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar. Before the appellate court, it was contended on behalf of Shabbir, that the Notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh u/s 4 of the Act, whereby possession of a knife with a blade of more than 10.16 centimeters in length without a licence was prohibited was illegal and unenforceable since it was in conflict with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The contention appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, who consequently made a reference u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that Shabbir's conviction and sentence be set aside. 2. When the reference and the connected revisions came up for hearing before Hamid Husain, J., the validity of the relevant Notifications issued by the State Government u/s 4 of the Act was challenged. The learned single Judge was of the view that the legal questions raised in support of the reference and the revisions were important enough to merit consideration by a larger Bench and consequently he made this reference as a result of which these cases have come up before us. 3. The learned single Judge was of the view that the legal questions raised in support of the reference and the revisions were important enough to merit consideration by a larger Bench and consequently he made this reference as a result of which these cases have come up before us. 3. The question of law which arises for consideration in these cases has been framed by Mohd. Hamid Husain, J. as follows: Whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh was competent u/s 4 of the Arms Act to regulate the acquisition, possession or the carrying of knives with blades longer than 10.16 centimeters in certain specified areas in the State? 4. Since apart from the question of law mentioned above no other point was raised before the learned Single Judge, he has referred these cases themselves for disposal by a larger Bench. Section 4 of the Act provides that: If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the, circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms, other than firearms should also be regulated, it may, by notification in the official gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arras of such class or description as may be specified in that notification unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 43(1) of the Act provides that: The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that any power or function which may be exercised or performed by it under this Act other than the power u/s 41 or the power u/s 44 may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification, be exercised or performed also by- (a) such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government, or (b) such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, as may be specified in the notification. Acting u/s 43(1) of the Act, the Central Government by means of a Notification No. G.S. Rule 1309 dated 1st October, 1962, delegated to the State Government its powers and functions u/s 4 of the Act. Acting u/s 43(1) of the Act, the Central Government by means of a Notification No. G.S. Rule 1309 dated 1st October, 1962, delegated to the State Government its powers and functions u/s 4 of the Act. In exercise of the power thus delegated u/s 4 of the Act the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued notification No. 5037-R/VIII-B-11-372-60 dated 19th June, 1969, published in the UP Gazette dated 28th June, 1969 Part I page 2243 which is as under: Whereas having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the areas mentioned in Schedule II to this notification it is necessary and expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession and carrying of sharp-edged weapons of the classes and description specified in Schedule I to this notification which are arms other than firearms be regulated: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers u/s 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, (Act No. 54 of 1959), read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs notification No. G.S. Rule 1309, dated October 1, 1962, the Governor is pleased to direct that the said section shall, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette, apply in respect of arms specified in the said Schedule I to the area mentioned in the said Schedule II: Schedule I-"Swords, sword-sticks, spears, spears-heads, ballams, kantas, karauli, daggers, pharsas, Bhujalies, bayonets, knives with blades longer than 10.16 centimeters other than those primary designed for industrial, agricultural or domestic purposes and gandasas other than gandasas of the type ordinarily used for domestic purposes." Schedule II-"District in which the area is situate- (1) Muzaffarnagar...whole district. 5. By means of similar Notification No. 7472-R/VIII-B-ii-372-60 dated 20th September, 1967, published in the U.P. Gazette dated 30th September, 1967, Part I, page 36)2 issued u/s 4 of the Act, possession of knives with blades longer than 10.16 centimeters without a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder was prohibited in the cities of Kanpur, Allahabad, Varnasi, Agra, Lucknow. Aligarh, Meerut etc. 6. According to the prosecution case giving rise to the revisions and the reference, the Applicants were found in possession of knives the blades of which were longer than 10.16 centimeters without requisite licences in the districts of Muzaffarnagar and Allahabad. The prosecution evidence was found reliable by the courts below and the defence rejected. 7. Aligarh, Meerut etc. 6. According to the prosecution case giving rise to the revisions and the reference, the Applicants were found in possession of knives the blades of which were longer than 10.16 centimeters without requisite licences in the districts of Muzaffarnagar and Allahabad. The prosecution evidence was found reliable by the courts below and the defence rejected. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants contended that the Notifications issued u/s 4 of the Act were ultra vires and consequently the convictions and sentences of the Applicants could not be sustained. He developed his argument in the fashion set out in the lines following. According to him, the expression "arms" has been defined in general terms in Section 2(c) of the Act. In exercise of powers u/s 41 of the Act, the Central Government has framed Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Rule 3 of the Arms Rules, 1962, has for the purposes of the Act and the Rules classified "arms" or "ammunition". The rule provides that "arms" shall be of the categories specified in Col. 2 of Schedule I The Schedule according to the submission of the learned Counsel exhaustively specifies or describes the "arms" contemplated by the Act and the Rules. Category V of the schedule on which reliance has been placed is as follows: Arms other than firearms: Sharp-edged and deadly weapons, namely, swords (including swordsticks) daggers, bayonets, spears (including lances and javeline), battle-axes, knives (including kirpans and Khukries) and other such weapons with blades longer than 9 inches or wider than 2 inches other than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or industrial purposes, steel, baton, "Zipo" and other such weapons called ' life preservers, machinery for making arms, other than category II, any other arms which the Central Government may notify u/s 4. It was submitted that according to category V of Schedule I of the Rules only knives with blades longer than 9 inches or wider than 2 inches were "arms" provided they were not designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or industrial purposes. Under the Rules, it was submitted knives of a dimension of less than 9 inches in length or 2 inches in breadth were not "arms" for the purposes of the Act and the Rules. Under the Rules, it was submitted knives of a dimension of less than 9 inches in length or 2 inches in breadth were not "arms" for the purposes of the Act and the Rules. It was urged that when category V of Schedule I at the end speaks of "any other arms which the Central Government may notify u/s 4", it could not and does not contemplate weapons already specified earlier with the dimensions altered. It was submitted that if it was intended to categories knives of blades less than 9 inches in length or 2 inches in breadth as "arms" it could be done only by an amendment of Schedule I which is part of the Rules, by following the procedure prescribed by Section 44(3) which requires that the Rules shall be placed before each House of Parliament for a total period of thirty days. Learned Counsel submitted that a mere notification even by the Central Government issued u/s 4 of the Act could not have the effect of bringing about an amendment of the statutory rules which had secured the approval of both the Houses of Parliament. Consequently, the State Government which was a mere delegate of the Central Government evidently was incompetent to do so. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned Advocate General for the State. There is, in our opinion, no substance in this contention. Section 2(c) of the Act is as follows: "Arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence 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 weapon. 9. According to this definition whatever be the description or design of an article if it is adapted as a weapon for offence or defence and is not an article designed solely for agricultural or domestic purposes or a weapon incapable of being used otherwise than a toy or of being converted into a serviceable weapon it is an "arm" for the purposes of the Act. The definition of the term "arm" is very wide. The definition of the term "arm" is very wide. It is undisputable that no rule can cut down or restrict any provision of the Act which is the paramount legislation. As far as such firearms as are contemplated by Section 2(c) of the Act are concerned, their acquisition and possession without a licence issued in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is prohibited by Section 3 of the Act itself. That section does not regulate the acquisition or possession of "arms" other than firearms. Section 4 of the Act, however, empowers the State Government to regulate the acquisition or possession of "arms" other than firearms in circumstances set out in that provision itself. A notification u/s 4 can be issued only on condition that the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area, it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of "arms" other than firearms should also be regulated. The only limitation on the power of the Central Government to regulate by means of a notification u/s 4 of the Act acquisition and possession of "arms" other than firearms is public interest. The acquisition and possession of any article which is an "arms" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act can be regulated by means of a requisite notification provided public interest demands such a regulation. If the article is an "arm" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act, no rule can place a limitation on the power of the Central Government given to it by the parliament by Section 4 of the Act, to issue a notification in respect of it. 10. On an examination of the Rules framed under the Act, we find that no such attempt has in fact been made. Rule 3 of the Arms Rules on which great reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Applicants is as follows: For the purposes of Act and these Rules, "arms" or "ammunition" shall be of the categories specified in cols. 2 and 3 respectively of Schedule I and references to any category of arms or ammunition in these rules shall be construed accordingly. This rule does not attempt or purport to define the term "arms". 2 and 3 respectively of Schedule I and references to any category of arms or ammunition in these rules shall be construed accordingly. This rule does not attempt or purport to define the term "arms". In fact, as observed above, it is not open to the rule making authority to define that expression for the purposes of the Act in a way different from that contained in Section 2(c) of the Act. It has rightly been contended by the learned Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh that a mere reading of Rule 3 read with Schedule I reveals that they have done nothing beyond grouping together various types of "arms" in V separate categories for the purposes of convenience of reference in the other provisions of the rule. 11. In Rule 3 which has been quoted above, it is stated that "arms"...shall be of the categories specified in col. 2...of Schedule I and references to any category of arms...in these rules shall be construed accordingly. Categories I and III of Schedule I consist of firearms of the varieties specified therein. Category II of the Schedule consists of "Machinery for manufacture or proof-testing of a Fire-arms." Such machineries as are mentioned in Category II are arms within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Category IV consists of "Curios and historical weapons other than those excluded u/s 45(c)" of the Act. The heading of Category V is "Arms other than fire arms" and under this heading are grouped together a large number of unconventional weapons that are commonly used in various parts of the country. "Arms" which the Central Government may notify u/s 4 are included in this Category. An explanation of Rule 4 read with Schedule II goes a long way to lend support the view that the limited purpose of Rule 3 read with Schedule I is to group together varieties of "arms" for convenience of references in the subsequent rules. Rule 4 lays down that, Licences u/Ch. II of the Act may be granted or renewed for such purposes, by such authorities, in such Forms and to be valid for such period and in such areas as are specified in Schedule II, subject to such conditions as are specified in that schedule and in the licence. Schedule II is in the form of a Table and has nine separate columns. Col. Schedule II is in the form of a Table and has nine separate columns. Col. No. 1 is headed "Item no" and consists of the Serial numbers of the subjects dealt with. Col. No. 2 has the heading "purpose". Under this heading in Item No. 2 the entry is "acquisition and possession only." The heading in col. No. 3 is "Categories of arms, ammunition as defined in Schedule I." Under this heading in Item No. 2 we find mentioned III (b), III (c), III (d), V and VI. The heading of the fifth column of this Schedule is "Licensing authority". The Licensing Authority for all categories of arms mentioned in col. 3 under item No. 2 as would appear from Schedule II is the "District Magistrate or any other officer specially empowered by the Central Government." The heading of col. No. 6 is "Areas for which the licence can be granted." The entry under this heading as far as the categories of arms in Item No. 2 of the Schedule are concerned is "whole of India or any specified area". The heading of col. No. 7 is "Renewing Authority". The entry in this column as far as Item No. 2 is concerned is "Same as licensing authority". "Form No." is the heading of col. No. 8. According to this Schedule, it is Form No. 3 in which licences have to be issued for all categories of arms grouped together under Item No. 2. In the absence of various categories of arms having been classified by means of Rule 3 read with Schedule I, a very large number of rules would have had to be framed to achieve the end that has been secured by Rule 4 read with Schedule II. An examination of Rules 4, 8 and 9 leads to the same conclusion. In the view taken by us the contention that the notifications issued by the State Government has in substance effected an amendment of Schedule I read with Rule 3 must fail. 12. It has not been contended before us that the power to issue a notification u/s 4 of the Act has not been validly delegated to the State Government by the Central Government. The impugned notifications u/s 4 of the Act are, in our judgment, valid and enforceable. 12. It has not been contended before us that the power to issue a notification u/s 4 of the Act has not been validly delegated to the State Government by the Central Government. The impugned notifications u/s 4 of the Act are, in our judgment, valid and enforceable. Since the Applicants were found in possession of knives of dimensions prohibited by the impugned notifications, they clearly committed a breach of Section 25(1)(b) of the Act and were rightly convicted. 13. Apart from question of law dealt with by us, no other point was urged in support of these revisions and the reference. 14. Chunnu alias Mohammad Mustafa, the Applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 2178 of 1970 has been sentenced to six months' R.I. We think that the sentence is rather severe. We consequently allow the Revision in part and while upholding his conviction u/s 25(1)(b) of the Act reduce his sentence to three months' R.I. He is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 15. Cr. Rev. No. 1443 of 1970 is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Applicant Ayub are confirmed. He is also on bail and shall surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence failing which he shall be taken into custody to do so. 16. Cr. Ref. No. 276 of 1970 is hereby rejected and the order of the learned Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarnagar, convicting and sentencing the Applicant Shabbir u/s 25(1)(b) of the Act is upheld. Shabbir shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Magistrate.