Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Ahmed Bin Salam and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
SLP(Crl.) No. 864 of 2013.
Decided On : 9-9-2013
Sanction - Arms Act, 1959 - Lack of prior sanction - Summary: The court held that the prosecution could not proceed due to lack of prior sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959. The sanction obtained during the pendency of the prosecution was deemed insufficient, and the case was set aside from the stage of cognizance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant argued that the prosecution could not proceed due to lack of prior sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959. The sanction was obtained during the pendency of the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case could not proceed on the basis of the sanction obtained during pendency and set aside the prosecution from the stage of cognizance. The respondents were given the option to initiate a fresh prosecution after obtaining the necessary sanction in accordance with the law.
Issues: Lack of prior sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. CBI & Anr. 2012 (6) SCC 228, which held that in a case like this, the concerned authority had no jurisdiction to take cognizance for want of prior sanction.
Final Decision: The special leave petition stands disposed of, and the prosecution was set aside from the stage of cognizance.
ORDER :
The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution could not have proceeded in view of the lack of prior sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. In the present case, the sanction has admittedly been obtained during the pendency of the prosecution. It is clear that the matter is concluded by the law as settled by judgment of this Court in General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. CBI & Anr. 2012 (6) SCC 228 wherein it is held that a sanction in a case like this the concerned could had no jurisdiction to take cognizance for want of prior sanction. We are, thus, of the view that the case cannot proceed on the basis of the sanction obtained during pendency. It would thus be appropriate to set aside the instant prosecution from the stage of cognizance. No doubt, it would be open to the respondents to initiate a fresh prosecution after obtaining the necessary sanction in accordance with the law.
3. With these observations, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
