2008(4) Crimes 400 (M.P.)
SHORT NOTE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.R. Waghmare, J.
Raees Khan —Petitioner
versus
State of M.P. —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 933 of 2003
Decided on 13.3.2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Where sanction for prosecution under Section 39 of Arms Act was obtained from District Magistrate without producing the fire arm which was not in working order record of the case, it could not be said to be a valid sanction.

Headnote:Arms Act, 1959—Section 39—Sanction for prosecution—Conviction for appellant found in possession of fire arm, a country made pistol—Witnesses admitted that trigger of the arm was jammed and was unable to fire—Seized fire arm was not sent to District Magistrate along with record of the case—Sanction could not be said to have been obtained in accordance with law—Conviction was liable to be set aside.

       Held: In instance case also PW5 Shivnarayan has been examined and his testimony is considered. He has stated that on 16.1.1985 he had recorded the statement of the accused that he had purchased the seized country made revolver from one Babu Khan in Rs. 300 and Babu Khan was purchased from his relation of Sarangpur. Thereafter the seizure memo has already been prepared at the bus-stand itself. He had no knowledge whatever whether the country made revolver was sent to the District Magistrate, Dewas. He has stated in his cross-examination that Article (1) was the fire arm and its trigger was jammed and it had not been cleaned and he was unable to fire the same. When this testimony is considered along with that of PW6 Shri B.M. Joshi, the tehsildar who was also examined; he was the arms clerk of the District Magistrate Shri P. Joy Oomman and he had in para 4 of the deposition categorically discussed that the seized fire arm above was not sent to the District Magistrate along with the first information report and the record of the case.

       Then considering this fact in the light of 2005 MPW Vol. 1, 84 (supra) the petitioner deserves to be acquitted since both the Court below have not considered the question that the sanction was not obtained in accordance with the law under Section 39 of the Arms Act at all. It has to be considered that looking to the condition of the weapon and the fact that it was not fired and was incapable of firing. Thus, the petitioner must be given the benefit of doubt since the country made revolver was not sent to the District Magistrate along with the record and hence the sanction from the District Magistrate was not duly obtained. The sentence and conviction of the accused for offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act thus, set aside and he is acquitted of the same. (Paras 10 and 11)

       Result: Revision allowed.