KAPTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction under section 25 of the Arms Act, passed by Mr. B. P. Mehrotra, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, on 10-1-1979, against the appellant. He has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. It may be mentioned here that he was additionally charged under sections 148 and 307/149 IPC but on these charges acquittal has been recorded.

(2.) THE facts are not disputed and the only argument advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the sanction is invalid inasmuch as the recovered fire arm and ammunition were never presented before the District Magistrate and, therefore, there was no justification for him to have come to a conclusion that it was a fit case in which sanction should be accorded. THE matter stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Bachchoo Singh v. State, 1969 AWR 418 where it has been held that requirement of section 39 is that sanction of the District Magistrate must be obtained before launching of the prosecution in respect of an offence mentioned in section 3 of the Arms Act In giving this sanction the District Magistrate must certainly apply his mind to the facts of the case and be aware of the circumstances under which the sanction was being accorded. But in giving the sanction, there is no duty imposed upon him to inspect the fire arm first. It may, of course, be said that he must be satisfied about the factum of recovery of the fire arm from the possession of a certain person but in order to get satisfied he need not himself see the fire arm. He may be satisfied to that effect from a perusal of the papers which are put up before him, which may disclose recovery of the facts; and circumstances under which the recovery is made.

(3.) IN the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let the accused appellant surrender before the court below to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. Appeal dismissed.