THE STATE Vs. GURDEO SINGH HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTION of Gurdev Singh Respondent under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act was set aside in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, simply on the ground that the requisite sanction under Section 29 of the Act had not been duly tendered and proved. This is State appeal under Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the appellate judgment of acquittal pass ed by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) ORIGINAL sanction to prosecute Gurdev' Singh Respondent under the Arms Act our porting to be signed by the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, was presented along with the charge -sheet. No objection to its validity or as regard's the necessity of its formal proof was raised at any stage before the trial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge held the view that the sanction should have been duly tendered and exhibited and that some evidence must have been led to show that it bore the signature of the District Magistrate.

(3.) AS already observed the original sanction under the signature of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, was produced in the Court of the trial Magistrate along with the charge -sheet. Section 57(7), Evidence Act, lays down that the Court shall take judicial notice of "the accession to office names, titles, functions and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any part of British India, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in any official Gazette!'.