J.S. Bedi, J.
1. Ram Rattan appellant was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Section 27 of the Arms Act on the allegation that he on the 25th March, 1967, was in possession of gandasa exhibit P. 1 and caused injuries to Sawan Singh of his village with it. The offence against him was proved and he was convicted by Shri Pritam Singh Pattar Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on the 8th September, 1967, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The appellant feels dissatisfied and has filed an appeal to this Court.
2. The story for the prosecution is as under. The parties in this case are residents of village Balial, Police Station Bhawanigarh, district Sangrur. Sawan Singh P. W. has two sons, namely, Babu Singh and Sadhu Singh both of whom are married. Bhajno wife of Babu Singh had contracted illicit relations with the appellant. Babu Singh along with his wife lived in a house close to the one where Sawan Singh his father resided. Sadhu Singh's house was at a short distance from that of Sawan Singh. On the 25th March, 1967, at about 9 P.M. Sawan Singh P W. along with his wife and son Sadhu Singh was sitting in their house when Sawan Singh went out to make water and saw the appellant going in a drunked condition carrying gandasa exhibit P. 1 towards the house of his son Babu Singh P.W. Sawan Singh asked the appellant as to why he was going to that house whereupon the appellant abused Sawan Singh and asked him not to stand in his way and he threatened to teach him a lesson. Saying so, the appellant gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side which fell on his face and cheek. On receipt of this injury, Sawan Singh fell down and raised an alarm on hearing which Sadhu Singh and his wife came there. Sawan Singh was given more injuries by the appellant. In the meantime, Babu Singh also arrived there and after arming himself with a gandasa caused injuries to the appellant with it in the exercise of the right of private defence and thus rescued his father Sawan Singh from the onslaughts of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on the 28th March, 1967. During the investigation the appellant was interrogated on the 1st, April, 1967, when he made disclosure-statement exhibit P. A./1 to the effect that he had concealed gandasa exhibit P. 1 in the wheat field of Gurdev Singh of Rampura near the kikar tree and offered to have it recovered. He then led the investigating party to the above-mentioned place and produced the gandasa, which was taken into possession vide memorandum Ex. PY/1. A case was also registered under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and he was sent up for trial which ended in the above-mentioned result.
3. The recovery in this case is witnessed by Head Constable Sant Singh, Faquir Singh and Kundan Singh. Their evidence is consistent and there is no reason why their sworn testimony should not be relied upon. In fact, the only argument in this appeal advanced by the appellant's counsel before me was that the gandasa was not covered by the definition of the word 'arm' under the Arms Act and he cited Mehr Din v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 162. But the definition of an arm was different under the old Act. In the Act of 1959 which is the latest enactment on the subject 'arms' is defined:
'Articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, and includes fire-arms, 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 as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used converted into serviceable weapons.''
In this case, the word 'adapted' is significant for our purpose. Gandasa is a sharp-edged weapon and is adapted and designed as a weapon for offence or defence. Many a murder is committed by such weapon. This is not a weapon which is primarily and solely used for domestic or agricultural purposes. I am, therefore, of the view that gandasa is covered by the definition of 'arms' in the Arms Act 1959 (No. 54 of 1959).
4. No other point was raised before me.
5. For the reasons given above, I dismiss this appeal also.