Judgment

VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. : The appellant in Criminal Appeal 69 of 1961 Jia Lal was searched by the Delhi Police on April 15, 1959 and was found to be in possession of an English pistol for which he held no licence. He was then prosecuted for an offence under S. 20 of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (XI of 1878), hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Additional Sessions Judge Delhi who convicted him under S. 19(f) of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months. No sanction for the prosecution had been obtained as required by S. 29 of the Act. The appellant then took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Punjab which confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to 4 1/2 months rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment that this appeal by special leave is directed.

2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 62 of 1960 Bhagwana was searched by the Saharanpur Police on August 6, 1956 and was found to be in possession of a country-made pistol and four cartridges for which he held no licence. He was prosecuted before the City Magistrate, Saharanpur under S. 19(f) of the Act and was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. No sanction was obtained for his prosecution, obviously because under S. 29 of the Act it is not required when the offences are committed in certain areas and Saharanpur is within those areas. The appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur but the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appellant then took the matter in revision to the High Court of Allahabad which rejected the same but granted certificate under Art. 134(1) of the Constitution. This is how this appeal comes before us. Though the two appeals arise out of two different prosecutions unconnected with each other, they were heard together as the same questions of law arise for determination in both.

3. The first question that arises for our decision is whether S. 29 of the Act is unconstitutional and void as contravening Art. 14, in that it requires sanction for prosecution for offences under the Act, when they are committed in some areas, but not in others. Section 29 of the Act is as follows:-

"Where an offence punishable under Section 19, Clause (f), has been committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into force in any State, district or place to which Section 32, Clause 2 of Act XXXI of 1960 applies at such date, or where such an offence has been committed in any part of India not being such a district, State 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."

For a correct understanding of the true scope of the sanction, it is necessary to refer to the history of the Legislation relating to it.

4. The earliest enactment dealing with this subject is the Arms and Ammunition and Military Stores Act 18 of 184l which came into force on August 30, 1841 and that prohibited the export of arms and ammunition out of the territories belonging to the East India Company and enacted certain prohibitions as regards the storing of ammunition. This Act was repealed by Act 13 of 1852. After the uprising against the British rule in 1857, the Government felt that a more stringent law was required for preventing insurrections and maintaining order and so a new Act was passed, Act 28 of 1857. This Act is a comprehensive one dealing with many matters not dealt with in previous legislation and contains elaborate provisions as regards the manufacture, import, sale, possession and use of arms and ammunition. Of particular relevance to the present discussion is S. 24 of this Act which empowered the Governor-General to order general search for arms and ammunition in any district. In exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the Governor-Gene