ROMESH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition u/s. 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code is directed againat the order dated 30/1/1999 framing charge against the petitioner in the case FIR No. 803/98 under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 P.S. Hauz Khas and rejecting his application for discharge.

(2.) Briefly the allegations are that on 20/10/1998 police officials searched the premises C-30, Mayfair Gardens, New Delhi and found fourteen live cartridges of 32 bore revolver in unlawful possession of the petitioner. Case was registered and after Accused/petitioner was produced in custody before the duty magistrate, and was supplied documents Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 7/1/1999 after ballistic expert report and sanction for prosecution was obtained under Section 39 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet, documents etc. was supplied to him. The petitioner sought discharge and dropping of the proceedings against him on the ground that on the date of filing of the first charge-sheet there was no sanction by the competent authority(DCP-Licenclng) for prosecution; that only conditional sanction was accorded on 23/12/1998 and complete sanction was granted only on 4/1/1999 and that cognizance of an offence can be taken only once; which was taken on the filing of the first charge-sheet when the documents were supplied. The court of Sh. J.P. Narain by the impugned order dated 30/1/1999 rejected the contention and framed charge against the petitioner. This order is under challenge.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The question which arises for iconsideration is Whether valid cognizance could be taken on the basis of supplementary challan filed on 7/1/1999 subsequent to the grant of sanction on 4/1/1999. The answer is in the affirmative.