NARAYANA KANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecutor laid a charge sheet against the revision petitioner under S.19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, referred to hereafter as the Act, for being in unlawful possession of a gun without the requisite licence. He pleaded guilty to the charge against him, under S.251A(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code and was convicted by the 1st Class Magistrate at Nedumangad and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the appeal taken by him against the conviction to the Sessions Court at Trivandrum, he raised the contention, that the conviction was illegal, as the prosecution was not supported by the sanction prescribed by S.29 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge repelled this contention, holding, that under S.29 no sanction is necessary.

(2.) S.29 of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) In interpreting the section, the learned Sessions Judge has held, that because the offence had been committed more than three months before the date on which the Act came into force in the State of Kerala, no sanction was necessary. Evidently, the learned Judge applied the first part of S.29, but failed to note, that it applies only to a State, district or place to which S.32(2) of Act XXXI of 1860 was applicable at the time this Act came into force, the reason being, that under that provision of the earner Act, there was power to order disarmament of such State, district or place, and therefore a restraint on prosecution for a limited period after the commencement of the Act, might be deemed to be reasonable; but in the present case, the provision in the Act of 1860 was not in force in the State of Kerala at the commencement of the Act) and the first part of S.29 has therefore no application. This interpretation of S.29 is supported by the decision Dhanpat v. State, AIR 1960 Allahabad 40. It is the second part of S.29 that applies, and if so, the prosecution has to be supported by the requisite sanction.