Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge in a case on the basis of an FIR No. 319/2005 holding inter alia that no case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short `the Act') was made out against the respondent, as sanction was obtained at a subsequent date after filing of the charge sheet.

2. The facts of the present case are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass. The allegations made in the petition are that the respondent, who is a life convict and was undergoing sentence in some other case at Rohtak Jail, upon getting parole, made a plan to commit robbery in a bank, for which purpose, he engaged two other accused, namely, Ram Kishore and Raj Kumar, and went to Allahabad Bank, Outer Ring Road, Hira Enclave, where one of the customers, namely, Chand Kumar Dham, the complainant, was trying to deposit Rs. 7,10,000/- at the bank counter. The respondent approached the complainant and pointed a pistol towards him and asked him to handover the money to him or otherwise, he would shoot the complainant. The respondent took away the money and went out the bank by pulling down the shutter of the bank and fled away in a Maruti Car with his two accomplices. Later on, during investigation, on secret information, the respondent and another accused were nabbed at Peera Garhi Chowk, New Delhi while sitting in a Maruti Car. On checking, one loaded pistol was recovered from the respondent, whereas one loaded country made revolver was effected from the accused, Raj Kumar. A briefcase containing currency notes worth Rs. 4.25 lacs was also recovered from the accused persons. The respondent, who was declared a Proclaimed Offender, refused to take part in the Test Identification Parade, but his case was not considered in the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the learned ASJ, whereby both the other accused persons, namely, Ram Kishore and Raj Kumar were charged under Section 411 IPC. Additionally, the accused Raj Kumar was charged for the offence under Section 25 of the Act.

3. When the respondent was again re-arrested, arguments on charge against the respondent were heard. In the course of the arguments, counsel for the respondent conceded framing of charges under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC, but opposed framing of charges under Section 25 of the Act on the ground that no prior sanction was obtained from the competent authority before filing of the charge sheet against the accused and the sanction was only taken after his re-arrest when he had absconded from custody. The aforesaid plea of the respondent was accepted by the learned ASJ, who, vide order dated 5.2.2008, held that as sanction was obtained at a subsequent date after filing of the charge sheet, no case was made out against the respondent under Section 25 of the Act. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned ASC for the petitioner/State submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 5.2.2008, the learned ASJ failed to appreciate the fact that a supplementary charge sheet dated 30.12.2006 contained the sanction under Section 39 of the Act. He drew the attention of this Court to a copy of the sanction order dated 29.9.2006, under Section 39 of the Act as also the report of the CFSL dated 30.9.2005. He also pointed out the endorsement of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 31.1.2007 on the supplementary charge sheet to contend that when there was already a sanction under Section 39 of the Act on the judicial record, there was no occasion to hold that no case under Section 25 of the Act was made out against the respondent. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned ASC relied upon the case of Ramesh Sharma v. State, 95 (2002) DLT 267.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the charge under Section 25 of the Act was rightly not framed as no pri