AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S.P. Singh, J.—The Revising Authority, Gorakhpur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned additional revising authority was justified in holding that the airguns are covered by the notifications regarding arms and ammunitions?
The reference is being treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.
Airgun is a weapon in which compressed air is used for propelling a lead pellet. The velocity of the pellet depends upon the air pressure released from the compressor chamber of the gun. Although most of the airguns are not lethal, in the sense that projectile fired through them is not capable of killing human being, yet it is capable of inflicting bodily injuries. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madan Sons, Dehradun 1978 U.P.T.C. 676, the question came was as to whether khukris were arms. In that case, Notification No. ST-1738/X dated 1st June, 1963, came for consideration. In the present case, it is Notification No. ST-1012/X dated 23rd March, 1971, but the relevant words are similar. It has been held in that case that the word "arms" means a weapon, which is capable of inflicting bodily injuries. Airguns are certainly capable of doing so. The order passed by the revising authority must, therefore, be upheld.
The revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.