ANIRUDH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 11-6-82 whereby the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated 17-6-80 was confirmed and the conviction u/s. 25 (l) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentence of one year R. I. was maintained.

(2.) BRIEF facts which give rise to this petition are that in pursuance of the information to police dated 24-6-75, by one Salim who was arrested in FIR No. 14/75 that he has given 10 rifles to the man who is sitting at Bus Stand, on the basis of this 10 rifles and 16 cartridges were recovered from the petitioner on 27-1-75 who was identified by Salim. After arresting petitioner vide Ex. P-2. a s-arch memo was prepared and thereupon FIR No 16/75 was registered against the petitioner and Salim. After due investigating and obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, both the accused were challaned u/s 25 of the indian Arms Act, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rai -. singhnagar. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Gopala Ram, PW and petitionerexamined himselr. In defend Gopiram was examined as DW 1 and petitioner examined himself. The leaned Magistrate after trial found that there is no evidence that Salim sold the ammunition to the petitioner and acquitted him but convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned ASJ, Raisinghnagar on 12-6-82. Hence this revision.

(3.) IT is clear that the learned District Magistrate has accorded sanc-tum after fully applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Nanhey V State (supra) sanction was accorded without considering the evid- ence on record, so this case is not applicable.