RIKHA SINGH Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A number of arms were recovered from the possession of the applicant in village Hasanpur Kalan in the distriot of Meerut. He was, therefore, prosecuted for an offence under Section 19 (f), Arms Act and convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and the sentence awarded to him was maintained by the Court of appeal. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) The findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below have not been questioned before me as they could not be questioned in a revision, this application has been argued upon a ground which was not put forward in any one of the two Courts below.

(3.) It is contended that sanction of the Dia-triot Magistrate was needed for the prosecution of the applicant and that the entire trial is illegal for want of such sanotion. Eeliance is placed upon Section 29, Arms Act in support of this contention. Section 29 reads as follows: Where an offence, punishable under Section 19 (1), has been committed within three months Horn the date on which this Act. comes into force in any province, distriot or place to which Section 82, Clause (2) of Act. XXXI of 1860, applies at such date or where such an offence has been committed in any pact of British India not being such a district, province, or place, no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of be oh offence without the previous sanotion of the Magistrate of the Distriot, or, in a Fresidenoy town, of the Commissioner of Police, It would appear from this section that no sanotion is needed for the institution of any proceeding in respect of an offence under Section 19, Clause (f), if it is committed in a place to which Clause (2), Section 32 of Act xxxi [31] of 1860 applied if the offence was committed three months after the coming into force of the Indian Arms Act (xi of 1878). If therefore the district of Meerut is a place to which Section 32, Clause (2) of Act. XXXI [31] of I860 applied, no sanction was needed in this case, for the offence was obviously committed more than three months after the coming into operation of the Indian Arms Act.