RIKHA SINGH Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A number of arms were recovered from the possession of the applicant in village Hasanpur Kalan in the district of Meerut. He was, therefore, prosecuted for an offence under Section 19 (f), Arms Act and convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and the sentence awarded to him was maintained by the Court of appeal. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) The findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below have not been questioned before me as they could not be questioned in a revision. This application has been argued upon a ground which was not put forward in any one of the two Courts below.

(3.) It is contended that sanction of the District Magistrate was needed for the prosecution of the applicant and that the entire trial is illegal for want of such sanction. Reliance is placed upon Section 29, Arms Act in support of this contention. Section 29 reads as follows: Where an offence, punishable under Section 19 (f), has been committed within three months from the date an which this Act cornea into force in any province, district or place to which Section 32, Clause (2) of Act XXXI of 1860, applies at such date or where such an offence has been committed in any part of British India not being such a district, province, or place, no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of such offence without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the District, or, in a Presidency town, of the Commissioner of Police. It would appear from this section that no sanction is needed for the institution of any proceeding in respect of an offence under Section 19, Clause (f), if it is committed in a place to which Clause (2), Section 32 of Act XXXI