ASSAM HIGH COURT
H. DEKA, G. MEHROTRA, JJ.
The State - Appellant
v.
Hussain Mirdha and others - Respondents.
Criminal Govt. Appeal No. 7 of 1956
Decided On : 5-12-1958.
ARMS ACT - SECTION 29 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - POWER TO GRANT SANCTION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Five accused were charged with an offense under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused, holding that the sanction for prosecution was not given by a competent authority. The State Government appealed against the acquittal of four of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Additional District Magistrate had the power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 29 of the Arms Act, as the District Magistrate was not a persona designata for this purpose. The court also found that the Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that there was no proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused persons.
Issues: Whether the Additional District Magistrate had the power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 29 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the State Government to appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional District Magistrate with all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate. The court also relied on the decision in Panchu Gopal Ghosh v. The King, which held that sanction under Section 29 of the Arms Act given by the Additional District Magistrate is valid.
Final Decision: The court convicted three of the accused under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act and sentenced each of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The order of acquittal in favor of the fourth accused was upheld.
DEKA, J. :- This appeal is by the State Government against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts on 19-3-56, Five accused persons were tried of an offence under Sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act before the Court of Session and the learned Additional Judge found the charge against Hussain Mirdha not .substantiated on facts. As regards the other form accused persons the learned Additional Judge found a case made out in. respect of the charge under Sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act, but since he was of the opinion that sanction. for the prosecution was not given by a competent authority, he held the trial to be bad, and, as such acquit all the accused persons. Of these acquitted persons Ramprasad is dead. The State Government has, therefore, come up in appeal against the order of acquittal of Hussain Mirdha, Wazuddtn. Mansur AH and Kami Sikdar the surviving accused.
2. The case for the prosecution was that on 12-6-53 Nagiram Saharia, Officer in charge of the Tarabari Police Station got an information that some people were collecting at a place known as Barabhita within his jurisdiction, - for the purpose of committing dacoity and Nagiram Saharia on this information took two Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police and ten Constables with him and started on a boat to apprehend the persons who had proceeded for the purpose of committing decoity. When he reached Barabhita which lay at the mouth of a river known as Kukarjan, he found a boat lying anchored with some persons on board.
He then made a dash towards the boat and on reaching the same he with his whole party got into that boat when Kanu Sikdar is alleged to have aimed a gun at the police party, but he was soon over powered. Accused Wazuddin was trying to escape by swimming but he was chased and caught. Accused Ramprasad was also caught at the place near the boat. Accused Mansur stayed in the boat. The police party started a search of the boat in the presence of some outsiders and the accused persons. During the search the police recovered two guns and one barrel of a gun with nineteen live cartridges from the boat. All these articles were seized and Tarun Sarma, Assistant Sub-Inspector prepared a seizure-list as asked by the Officer-in-Charge Nagiram Saharia.
The four accused persons were put under arrest and were taken to the thana along with the seized articles and the boat from where these articles were recovered. The boat belonged to Hussain Mirdha and it was alleged that he was seen at Etorbhita in the early morning of 12-6-1953 coming out from the boat, but at the time the police searched the boat and recovered the guns and cartridges he was not there. He was, however, put under arrest few days later and was sent up in connection with this easel for complicity in possessing arms and ammunition without licence. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and their defence was that these articles were-not recovered from their possession.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed the evidence on the point and came to the finding that no case was made out, at least satisfactorily, against Hussain Mirdha. But against the other four accused, he stated in the judgment that be was satisfied that the arms and ammunition in question were in conscious possession of the four accused persons and he would have no hesitation in holding that Monsur, Wazuddin, Kanu Sikdar and Ramprasad could have been convicted of an offence under S. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Art were ***** the prosecution defective because of want of sanction.
In this case Mr. Chowdhury appearing for the State has pressed one point before us with emphasis and that is that the learned Additional Judge was wrong in holding that there was no proper sanction for prosecution of the accused persons as contemplated under S. 29 of the Arms Act. In the circumstances of the case he did not press that Hussain Mirdha could be convicted; but as to the other three surviving accused he pressed
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.