ORDER : The challenge is against the concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of conviction in C.C. No. 894/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 820/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. The conviction was under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Sentence was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case is as follows:- On 06.07.2001 at about 10.30 pm, the accused was found threatening the public by showing a sword at Maruvakkadu - Velankanni Church and thereby committed the offence. Before the trial court, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and Exts.P1 and P2 were marked and MOI sword was identified. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also not successful. Hence the revision petition. 3. The point canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that whether brandishing a sword can be considered as an offence inviting conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel also submitted before me that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. 4. There is a concurrent finding in respect of possession of sword. A re-appreciation of evidence by this Court is not warranted in that respect. 5. The next aspect to be considered is whether the possession and brandishing a sword will invite an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Section 2(c) of the Arms Act defines arms: ""arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offences, 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 weapons." 6. The penal provision under which revision petitioner was convicted was section 27, which states as follows:- "Punishment for using arms, etc-(1) whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death." 7. Now in this case sword is the weapon used for committing the offence. As per schedule I framed under Rule 3 of the Arms Rules it can be seen that as item No. V therein the description of arms other than fire arms is given as follows : "Sharp-edged and deadly weapons, namely: Swords (including sword-sticks), daggers, bayonets, spears (including; lances and javelins), battle-axes, knives (including Kirpans and Khukries) and other such weapons with blades longer than 9" or wider than 2" other than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or industrial purposes, steel batton, "Zipo" and other such weapons called 'life preservers', machinery for making arms, other than category II, and any other arms which the Central Government may notify under section 4 of the Act." 8. Naturally, the sword which is marked as MO 1 in this case will come under the purview of an 'arm'. But the point to be considered is whether for an arm under consideration a licence is required as per Section 4 of the Act. The licence is required only if there is a notification regulating the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than fire arms. Section 4 of the Arms Act states as follows : "4. But the point to be considered is whether for an arm under consideration a licence is required as per Section 4 of the Act. The licence is required only if there is a notification regulating the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than fire arms. Section 4 of the Arms Act states as follows : "4. Licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases - 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 arms 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." 9. Thus going by the said section, arms other than fire arms requires licences only in an area regulating the same by a notification in the official gazette. In a notified area, without licence, a person cannot acquire, possess or carry arms of such class or description as may be specified in that notification. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note Rule 4 of the Arms Rules framed in 2016. Surely the said rules is not applicable in this case, but for appreciation of Section 4 of the Arms Act, it is relevant. 10. In Rule 4 of the Arms Rules, it is stated as follows : "4. Licence for arms other than firearms and applicability of section 4 - (1) Unless the Central or the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette so directs, no licence shall be required for the manufacture, sale, possession for sale or test, of arms of category V in Schedule I except in the areas notified under section 4." 11. It is categorically stated therein that no licence is required for arms other than firearms unless there is a central or State Government notification in official gazette so directs, to have licence. 12. It is categorically stated therein that no licence is required for arms other than firearms unless there is a central or State Government notification in official gazette so directs, to have licence. 12. Now, on the background of these discussions, we can analyse Section 27 of the Arms Act for which the revision petitioner herein was convicted. Section 27(1) will be applicable wherever there is uses of any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5. Section 27(2) and (3) is not at all applicable in the case at hand. Section 5(1) of the Arms Act reads as follows : "Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition - (1) No person shall - (a) use, 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 firearms 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 provision of this Act and the rules made thereunder. ------------ -------------” 13. To attract Section 5, in the case of arms other than fire arms it should be "such class or description as may be prescribed". Thus, on reading of Section 5 along with Section 4 of the Arms Act, it can be seen that Section 5 will not be applicable in cases of arms coming under the purview of Section 4 of the Arms Act for which licence is not required. As long as the area wherein the sword used is not a notified area, an offence under Section 27 will not lie. In the case at hand, there is no case for the prosecution that the incident took place at a notified area. No notification was produced. Thus it is held that the conviction under Section 27 will not lie. The revision petition is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the revision petitioner. The bail bonds stand cancelled.