STATE Vs. RAM CHAND S/O KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three acquittal appeals (Criminal Appeals Nos. 142, 143 and 144 of 1961) filed by the Stale In which the same question of law is Involved. The facts are undoubtedly not completely identical but for the purposes of these appeals the essential features are similar with the result that for understanding the real nature of the point Involved, I will briefly narrate only the facts of the case, State v. Ram chard (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1961 ).

(2.) ONE Puran son of Dhonkal died In February, 1955. He had a licence for a muzzle loading gun No. 573, After his death this gun is stated to have been kept or retained by Ram Chand accused respondent In his possession. On 20-6-1360 ram Chand produced this gun In the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, nalagarh, who directed Ram Chand to deposit the same with the police. The accused was proceeded against under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act for having In his possession the gun In question without a licence. The learned magistrate trying the case was of the view that the conduct of the accused In keeping with him this gun from 8-2-1956 to 20-6-1960 did bring his case within the purview of Section 19 (f) but in view of Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act, he acquitted him because previous sanction as contemplated by this section had not been obtained before instituting these proceedings.

(3.) AT the trial the prosecuting Sub-inspector cited a decision of a Full Bench of the allahabad High Court in Bhai Singh v. State, AIR 1960 All 369 (FB), where Section 29 was struck down as invalid being violative of the rule of equal protection of laws which is incorporated in Article 14 of the Constitution. But the learned magistrate preferred to follow a decision of the Pepsu High Court in Chand Singh v. State, AIR 1954 Pepsu 132, and a decision of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial commissioner in Kanhya v. State, AIR 1951 Him. Pra. 35.