GAYA DIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by one Gayadin who has been convicted under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment. The applicant is a resident of Qaimganj in the District of Farrukhabad. On 12-11-1953 at about 7 P.M. he was found in possession of a country made pistol and two cartridges. At that time he was in a grove near the Qaimganj Primary School. On receiving information about it, the station officer Qaimganj, Sri M. P. Agnihotri, came to the spot taking with him a Circle Inspector, a number of constables and some members of the public. The applicant was found in the company of another person. Both of them were arrested and searched. From the person of the applicant one pistol (Ext. I) and two live cartridges (Ex. II) were recovered. The police framed a charge-sheet in respect of the case, and submitted to the District Magistrate for sanctioning the prosecution of the applicant under Section 19 (f), Arms Act. The sanction was given. The accused was prosecuted. He was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Qaimganj. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He denied that Exhibits I and II, the pistol and cartridges were recovered from him. He further alleged that he was going to the railway station when he was suddenly arrested by the police.

(2.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses to prove the afore-mentioned recovery. Nazar Ali (P. W. 1) is a vendor at the railway station, Sri M. P. Agnihotri is the station officer and Daulat Mir Khan is another witness. All these witnesses unanimously deposed that the illicit arms (Exts. I and II) were recovered from the possession of the accused under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. The accused examined one witness namely Banwari Lal in support of his case. The trial Court believed the prosecution version, and disbelieved the case of the applicant. It, accordingly, convicted the applicant under Section 19 (f). Arms Act and sentenced him as above. The applicant went up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad. His appeal having been dismissed, he has filed this revision in the High Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in this case has not contested the findings of the Courts below on merits. He has, however, argued that the trial of the accused in the present case has been vitiated on three grounds, namely, (1) there is nothing to show that the sanctioning authority applied its mind before according the sanction, (2) the sanction granted in the present case is vague and (3) that, in any case the signature of the District Magistrate on the sanction is not proved.