GURUDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of the Court was delivered by S.L. Kochar, J.: ON 4/4/2008, both the Criminal Revisions were listed before the learned Single Judge for final arguments. Learned Counsel for applicants argued before the learned Single Judge that for conviction of the applicants under Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act (for short "the Act"), sanction for prosecution of the applicants as per provision under Section 39 of the Act was necessary and at the time of according sanction by the sanctioning authority, arm in question was not produced by the Investigating Officer before the sanctioning authority, and sanctioning authority must satisfy itself that the instrument is such which is covered within the definition given in the Act. Learned Counsel for applicants placed reliance on the following judgments:

(2.) On the contrary, learned Counsel for State relying on the wording of Section 39 of the Act, submitted before the learned Single Judge that Section does not require the prosecuting agency to produce the instrument/offending arm before the sanctioning authority and observations made by learned Single Judge in the above referred cases are contrary to the provisions of law and in fact are putting unnecessary fetters on the power and authority of the sanctioning authority. Learned Counsel for State submitted before the learned Single Judge for referring the matter to the larger bench so that an authoritative pronouncement by larger bench occupy the field and leaves no scope for doubt or ambiguity on the point in question.

(3.) The matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and that is how this reference was listed before this Division Bench for decision.