JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against order dated 11-10- 1982 by Sri Parduman Kumar, learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge (Higher Criminal Court), Budaun who partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1982. While upholding the conviction of revisionist under Section 25 of Arms Act, he reduced his sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment to nine months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentences were initially recorded by Sri Virendra Singh, learned IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Budaun in Case No. 935 of 1981 on 14-7-1982. 2. Prosecution case briefly stated was that on 25-6-1981 at about 3,30 P. M., Sri Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj PW 1 S. O. Hazratpur, district Budaun had an information by informer that the revisionist was manufacturing illicit pistols and guns. On this information S. O. Sri Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj along with Constables Mangal Sen PW 3, Prakash Chandra Tyagi, Rajendra Singh and Chandra Pal Singh raided the house of revisionist in village Gauntra and found the revisionist rubbing the barrel of a pistol on vice 'Bank' to bring it to size. He was surrounded, out numbered and over powered. Country made pistol of twleve bore (Ext. 26) from his left hand and file (Ext. 31) from his right hand were recovered two triggers Exts. 1 and 2; two bodies of pistol Ext. 3 and 4, two ejected cartridges Exts. 5 and 6; two dises Exts. 7 and 8 ; one body of revolver Ext 9 ; one live cartridge 12 bore Ext. 10 and other Exts, total number 31, were also recovered from that place as detailed in memo Ext. Ka.-1 which were sealed on the spot and duly attested by witnesses. Revisionist was marched to police station and after the report was scribed by Constable Ram Naresh PW 4, revisionist was sent up by Investigating Officer Sri S. S. Chauhan PW 2 after procuring necessary sanction for the prosecution from District Magistrate. 3. Prosecution examined four witnesses in support of their case. Eyewitnesses, who testified the recovery aforesaid and identified the articles given above are Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj PW 1 and Mangal Sen PW 3 while the two other witnesses are formal. 4. In his statement, accused revisionist denied the aforesaid recovery and did not adduce any evidence in defence. Both the courts below believed the PWs and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. Aggrieved by this decision, this revision has been preferred. 5. 4. In his statement, accused revisionist denied the aforesaid recovery and did not adduce any evidence in defence. Both the courts below believed the PWs and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. Aggrieved by this decision, this revision has been preferred. 5. I have heard Sri Keshav Sahai, learned Advocate for revisionist at great length, and Sri N. S. Kulshrestha, learned AGA. 6. On behalf of revisionist, it was pointed out that the sanction (Ext. Ka-4) for prosecution of the revisionist was held invalid by the learned trial Magistrate on the ground that the empty cartridges were not mentioned in the said sanction by District Magistrate which was indicative of non-application of mind and consequently no conviction under Section 8 of Arms Act could be recorded. However, such sanction was not obligatory to bring home the charge under Section 25 read with Section 5 of Arms Act (Act No. 54 of 1959) which was operative at the time of commission of offence, read as below :- "5. Licence for manufacture, sale, etc. of arms and ammunition :-No person shall- (a) manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove or (b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearm or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder ........." 'Arm' has been defined in Section 2 (c) as below :- " "arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, and includes firearms, sharpedged 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 ". Firearm has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the aforesaid Act as below :- "firearm" arm of any description designed or adapted to discharge as projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes........." 7. Firearm has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the aforesaid Act as below :- "firearm" arm of any description designed or adapted to discharge as projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes........." 7. Thus the argument developed was that Sec. 5 of the aforesaid Act which obligates a licence for manufacturing of firearm etc., is applicable only to a complete arm or finished object and not an arm in the process of manufacture. 8. The word ' manufacture ' has not been defined in the aforesaid Act. However, it has been defined in Section 5 (h) of Explosive Act, 1984 (Act No IV of 1984) in the following words :- "(h) "manufacture " in relation to an explosive includes the process of- (1.) dividing the explosive into its component parts or otherwise breaking up or unmaking the explosive, or making fit for use and damaged explosive ; and (2) remaking, altering or repairing the explosive. " In Stround's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition at page 1620, the meaning of word 'manufacture' is as below :- "Manufacture (1)" The word 'manufacture' in the Statute of Monopolies (21) Jac 1, C. 3), must be construed in one of two ways. It may mean the machine when completed, or the mode of constructing the machine" (Per Parke B., Morgan v. Seaward, 6 LJ Ex. 156). " The word ' manufacture, " said Abbott CJ, in R. v. Wheeler (2 B Alld. 349). " has been generally understood to denote, either a thing made which is useful for its own sake and vendible as such, as a medicine, a stove, a telescope, and many others ; or to mean an engine or instrument, or some part of an engine or instrument, to be employed either in the making of some previously ' known article, or in some other useful purposes, as a stocking frame, or a steam engine for raising water from mines ; or, it may perhaps extend also to a new process to be carried on by known implements or elements acting upon known substances, and ultimately producing some other known substance but producing it in a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or of a better or more useful kind. No mere philosophical or abstract principle can answer to the word ' manufactures '. No mere philosophical or abstract principle can answer to the word ' manufactures '. Something of a corporeal and substantial nature something that can be made by man from the matters subjected to his art and skill, or at the least some new mode of employing practically his art and skill, is required to satisfy the word." XX X (5) to "manufacture" a thing, is to "bring it into being" (per Bray J.), and samble, is synonymous with to "MAKE"; and, at least, the two verbs were used synonymously in Finance Act 1901 col. 55, and therefore, Sacchaine of greater (or different?) strength which was evolved from other saccharine, was not "manufactured" or "made", within the section (MoNicol v. Pinch (1906) 2 K.B. 352). See also British Sugar (Subsidy) Act 1925 (C. 12), S.6". 9. Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (Encyclopedic Edition) page 776, manufacture means : "Manufacture. In make or fashion by hand or machinery, especially in large quantities. To work into useful form, as wood or steel 3. to create by artifice, invent falsely concoct. 4. To produce in a mechanical way, as art, postry, etc. See synonyms under MAKE. Produce-n.1, The production of goods by and or by industrial art or processes. 2 Anything made by industrial art or processes ; manufactured articles collective. 3 The making or contriving of anything."' 10. Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I page 1203 gives the following meaning of 'manufacture' :- "Manufacture-The action or process of making by hand BACON, b. The making of articles of material (now, on a large scale) by physical labour or mechanical power, c. A branch of productive industry. d. In depreciatory sense, production of a merely mechanical kind. Also applied, e.g. to literary work, or to the fabrication of false statements on a large scale for the market 2. a. A person's handi-physical labour or machinery. 3. Working with the hands; a manual occupation, handicraft 4. A manufacturing establishment or business." Murray in his 'A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol. M.' page 143, gives the following meaning of manufacture :- "a. The action or process of making by hand. 1605 Bacon Adv, Leam. I vi 2. It is not set down that God said. 3. Working with the hands; a manual occupation, handicraft 4. A manufacturing establishment or business." Murray in his 'A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol. M.' page 143, gives the following meaning of manufacture :- "a. The action or process of making by hand. 1605 Bacon Adv, Leam. I vi 2. It is not set down that God said. Let there be heaven and earth...but actually, that God made heaven and earth ; the one carrying the style of a manufacture, and the other of a...decree, b. The action or process of making articles or material (in modern use, on a large scale) by the application of physical labour or mechanical power." 11. Thus a mere look at the aforesaid definitions of arm and sections of the Arms Act aforesaid and the meaning of the word 'manufacture', as given in the aforesaid dictionaries means the process of making any fire-arm etc. It does not mean merely a finished product or a complete arm and so the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the conviction was not sustainable as the barrel of the pistol was not a working firearm falls to the ground. 12. The next contention was that no charge was drawn by learned Magistrate under Sec. 25 of Arms Act read with Sec. 5 of aforesaid Act. Recovery of cartridges and pistols only were mentioned in the charge but it was not said that the accused was found manufacturing any arm or fire-arms and under such circumstances, no conviction was sustainable without amendment of the charge. Further, it was argued that even in the question no. 1 formulated under Sec. 31.3 CrPC the revisionist was accused of manufacturing the firearm but the aforesaid articles recovered from his possession were not specified in the question so he has been prejudiced by this omission which vitiates the trial. I have carefully considered all these contentions which are devoid of force. 13. Section 464 CrPC (Act No. 2 of 1974) reads as below :- "464. (1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby...." 14. (1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby...." 14. Thus, it is obvious that all such irregularities have been made curable so that form may not override the substance. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionist has been prejudiced in any manner by non specification of all the aforesaid articles in the charge. In the questions formulated under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C, he had an ample opportunity to know the precise accusation and so it cannot be said that he has been prejudiced in any manner by the aforesaid omission. A mere look at Section 25 of Arms Act, under which the revisionist was charged, shall go to disclose that the aforesaid section punishes manufacturing, reparing etc. of any arm or ammunition in contravention of Sec, 5 of the aforesaid Act. While referring the definitions of arm and fire-arms in Sec. 5 aforesaid, it has been shown that even any part of the fire-arm falls well within the aforesaid definitions to expose the revisionist to the aforesaid penalty. There is evidence of eye witnesses believed by the courts below that accused was engaged in bringing the barrel of the pistol to size at the time of his apprehension. So many articles were recovered from his possession which fully corroborated the testimony of PWs. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid conviction cannot be faulted. 15. As regards the sentence, it cannot be regarded as excessive by any stretch of imagination. However, as the revisionist has already been in jail for about three months pending the trial and this revision, the said period shall be deducted and he will have to serve the remainder sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment more. With these observations, the revision is dismissed. 16. Thus, the conviction and sentence of revisionist are affirmed. Ad interim order dated 7-12-1982 is vacated. Let revisionist surrender to his bonds and be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. 17. Send the record to the court concerned at the earliest. Revision dismissed.