VIRANSINGH @ SIMANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate for the respective appellant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent.

(2.) The appeal was filed by two appellants challenging the judgment passed by Sessions Court convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and directing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.Five Hundred and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(3.) Shri R.H. Raolani, advocate for the appellant No.1 has submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, overlooking the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act which lay down that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. In support of his submission, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Kamalsingh Vs. State of Mah., 2005 1 MhLJ 218.