KAMALSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Lubesh Meshram, Advocate, for appelliant and Mr. Y. B. Mandpe, A. P. P. for State-respondent. in this appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for after under section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and under section 128 read with section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the 4th Additional Sessions judge Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 316/1999 on 24-7-2003 by sentencing him to R. I. for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R. I. for one month and fine of Rs. 507- in default S. I. for 2 days respectively.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 10-3-1999, the appellant along with his associates at about 11. 00 p. m. at Motibag Road proceeded on their vehicle, for committing dacoity by means of weapons and on suspicion the police staff brougught them on the spot with fire arms and hence on the basis of complaint under section 399 read with section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms Act the charge sheet was filed against the present appellant on suspicion, it is the case of the prosecution that after filing of the charge sheet the charge was framed against the appellant under section 399 read with section 3 of the Arms Act and after calling the witnesses they were examined and evidence was recorded, thereafter the 4th Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion and found the present appeliant guilty under section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and he sentenced the appellant to five years R. I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 128 read with section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act with fine of Rs. 500/ -. It is a mater of record that so far as the conviction and sentence under section 128 read with section 127 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the appellant has alrady paid fine.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant however, challenged the conection of the appellant for offence under section 3 read with section 25 of the arms, Act mainly on the ground that as required under section 39 of the Arms act previous sanction of the District Magistrate was necessary. He therefore submited that the conviction of the appellant under section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms Act cannot sustain, as admittedly there was no previous sanction of the District Magistrate.