Heard Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel for opposite party no. 3.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 1993 by which he has rejected the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for taking into evidence the sanction order of the District Magistrate, Begusarai under Section 39 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

3. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present application are as under:–

4. Pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged against opposite parties under Sections 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 25 (1-B)A, 26, 27 and 35 of the Act in Barauni P.S. Case No. 406 of 1992 dated 1.10.1992 in the District of Begusarai, the sanction appears to have been accorded by the then District Magistrate, Begusarai as contained in Memo No. 1968 dated 23.12.1992 under Section 39 of the Act for prosecution under Sections 25 (1-B)A/26 of the Act as is required under the Act. During the course of trial, the prosecution while examining its witnesses got the said sanction order exhibited on 28.11.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order by which the sanction order was exhibited, the opposite party no. 2 moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 53830 of 2006 and by order dated 8.1.2007, this Court set aside the said order on the ground that Section 311 of the Code could not be invoked for taking such document as evidence and the provision which was applicable was Section 294 of the Code. However, after setting aside the order dated 28.11.2006 a direction was given to the Court below to take steps under Section 294 of the Code for admission of the document if required for just decision of the case. This occasioned passing of the impugned order dated 6.8.2007 by which the Court below has rejected the prayer of the prosecution for marking the sanction order as an exhibit under Section 294 of the Code on the ground that in the rejoinder filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 the stand was that the document is forged and manufactured thereby disputing the genuineness of the said document.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cannot be sustained since the same is erroneous inter alia on the ground that from very perusal of order dated 8.1.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53830 of 2006, this Court had directed the Court below to take steps under Section 294 of the Code for admission of the document if required for just decision of the case. From the said order of remand it is clear that this Court has directed the Court below to take steps under Section 294 of the Code which reads as under:–

“294. (1) No formal proof of certain documents.–Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed.

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”

6. Learned counsel submits that the Court below has only been given discretion to decide whether the document was required for just decision of the case and in fact under a direction of this Court, the Court below was obliged to take steps under Section 294