THE STATE Vs. JANGIR SINGH KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JANGIR Singh Petitioner was found in possession of a local made .303 rifle for keeping which he had no license. A case under Section 19(f), Arms Act, was registered against him and sanction of the District Magistrate, as required by Section 29 was obtained for his prosecution. The original order of the District Magistrate granting sanction was produced in the trial court along with the charge sheet on 8 -10 -1952. The recovery of the rifle from the possession of the Petitioner was proved not only by the two prosecution witnesses Nand Singh and Zora Singh in whose presence it had been effected but also by his own admission. He only stated that he was himself taking it to the police station for delivering it up but called no evidence in defence. He was found guilty under Section 19(f) and punished with Rs. 100/ - fine. The learned A. D. M. on being moved by the State, has made a reconi' mendation that his sentence be enhanced. In showing Cause against that enhancement, it was arguer by S. Tlratha Singli that the sanction ob -taigas under Section 29 had not been legally proved and at it was not enough to put it on the record. Section 29 of the Arms Act 'forbids proceedings under Section 19(f) being taken against any person found in possession of illicit arms without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the District. Such sanction, therefore, is a pre -requisite of a valid prosecution. In the present case the necessary sanction exists but exception is taken to the prosecution failing to prove it formally. No witness was examined to prove the sanction and all that the prosecution did was to append with the charge sheet the original order containing it. The question that, therefore, fails for determination is whether the production of the original sanction in court constituted admissible proof of its contents. No objection was taken by the accused regarding the mode of its proof when it was given an exhibit mark and accepted as evidence. Sections 57 and 74, Evidence Act, do not insist upon formal proof in support Of the genuineness of such a document. Section 57, Evidence Act, permits a Court to take judicial notice of the signatures of the District Magistrate. It is not disputed that the appointment of S. Amar Nath Kashyap as District Magistrate had been duly gazetted. It was that officer who had granted the sanction. No fact of which the court is required by law to take judicial, notice need be proved. It would, therefore, be in accordance with law to accept that the signatures on the sanction in question are those of Shri Amar Nath Kashyap. The document, as it is a record of the act of the District Magistrate, would fall under Section 74(1)(iii), Evidence Act. It is a public document which need not have beer produced in original at all and a certified copy of it would have sufficed and would have been admissible under Section 77, Evidence Act. Obviously, if a certified copy of such a document can be produced in proof of the contents of the original, the original itself would provide much better proof. My view finds support from the decision in - 'Sagar Mal v. State, : AIR 1951 All 816 (A) and - 'State v. Sagar Mal, : AIR 1951 All 515 (B). The objection of S. Tirath Singh has, therefore, no force. The trial Magistrate had no doubt about the validity of the sanction and the accused did not point out anything against its genuineness. That the sanctioning authority had before it all the material necessary to enable him to apply his mind is apparent from the words in winch the sanction was granted. They show that all the evidence and circumstances of the case had been duly taken into consideration by the District Magistrate before he approved of the prosecution of the Petitioner.

(2.) SO far as the merits go, there can be no doubt that the accused was found in possession of the unlicensed rifle. I have already observed in - 'Jangir Singh v. State', Criminal Revn. No 301 of 1952 D/ - 6 -1 -1953 (Pepsu) (C), that the possession of unlicensed fire -arms has, it appears, grown to be extensive after the partition of the Punjab, & that has contributed in a great measure to promote lawlessness. A sentence of Rs. 100/ -fine in the case of illicit possession of a .303 rifle is greatly incommensurate with the gravity of the offence.