CHAND SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Chand Singh son of Jai Singh, of village Dialpura against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, dismissing his appeal and maintaining the order of the trial Magistrate convicting and, sentencing him to li years' R.I. under Section 19(f), Indian Arms Act.

(2.) IT was argued before me that the sanction obtained by the Police from the District Magistrate under Section 29, Indian Arms Act, was invalid and that that defect rendered the prosecution of the Petitioner illegal. Three unlicensed arms and some cartridges specified in the recovery memo Ex. PC were alleged to have been produced by the Petitioner on 18 -4 -1953 from a house jointly occupied by him and his brother. It is stated that the Petitioner had before producing them made a statement to S.I. Piare Lal admitting their possession and placement. The entire investigation had been completed by M. Piare Lal on 18 -4 -1953.

(3.) NOW Section 29, Indian Arms Act prohibits institution of proceedings in a criminal Court against any person in respect of an offence under Section 19, Clause (f) without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. If no sanction as contemplated by Section 29 is obtained, the entire proceedings before the Magistrate would be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. It is true that there is no set form in which the sanction should be expressed nor is it necessary for the sanctioning authority to pen down elaborate reasons or any at all but the order of sanction must be based upon material indicating and comprising facts furnishing some proof of the crime. Section 29 was not enacted to provide for a mere formality of sanction. On the other hand, it creates a wholesome safeguard against false, frivolous and inexpedient prosecutions or those that may not for one reason or the other be desirable or in public interest.