GANESH BAHADUR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GANESH Bahadur was convicted under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act by an order of the Magistrate, 1st Glass, Mangoldoi. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment, of which he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. His petition of revision to the Sessions Court did not succeed. He has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) THE only important point that arises in the case is whether sanction for the prosecution of the petitions, which was obtained admittedly after the institution of the proceedings against him, can validate the proceedings with retrospective effect.

(3.) THE language of the section does not support the contention raised by the learned counsel. It also receives support from two decisions of the Patna High Court, viz., Girja Suri v. Emperor and Mohan Lahari v. The King, A.I.R. (37) 1950 Pat. 243. The earlier decision of the Patna High Court followed a decision of their Lordships of the Federal Court reported in Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1945 16. In the case before us, the charge sheet was submitted on 3.1.1949 in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Mangoldoi. He transferred the case to the 2nd Magistrate for disposal. On the same day it was received by the 2nd Magistrate who ordered that the case be fixed for hearing on 1.3.1949. He also directed the police to produce the accused and the prosecution witnesses that clay. On 1.2.1949 the accused was produced but the prosecution witnesses were absent. The case then dragged on for sometime. There were several adjournments, but for one reason or the other no prosecution witnesses could be examined. On 15.7.1949, it was discovered that sanction for the prosecution as required by Section 29, Arms Act had not been obtained. The Prosecuting Officer then asked for an adjournment to obtain sanction from the District Magistrate. The case was adjourned. The sanction of the District Magistrate was received after this date. The prosecution witnesses were then examined and at the termination of the trial the accused was found guilty.