The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of previous sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act for prosecuting offenses under the Act, and the distinction between offenses under the Wildlife Act and the Arms Act, emphasizing the need for separate sanctions and investigations.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By making this application, under Section 482 Cr.PC., the present two petitioners, who were accused in CR Case No. 314/2005, under Sections 9/12/30/3/32/33/35(6-8)/39/25(1)B/52, which is presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur, have sought to get, inter alia, quashed the First Information Report, which has given rise to Tezpur Police Station Case No. 506/2007 under Sections 25(1)B of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The material facts, giving rise to the present petition, may be set out as under:

(i) CR Case No. 314/2005 aforementioned has arisen out of a complaint lodged by the District Forest Officer, Western Assam Wildlife Division, the case of the complainant being, briefly stated, thus: As per verbal instructions received, on 10.10.2005, from the Forest Officer of Nameri National Park/Nameri Wildlife Region, four forest officials had gone inside Nameri Reserve Forest and when they reached Upper Dikiri Doimukh Tapo area of the said National Park/Wildlife Region, they noticed flashes of torchlight and also heard sound of oars steering wooden boat. A little while thereafter, they saw, under thin/mild/pale moonlight, two persons proceeding on foot and two persons present near the boat, one of the two persons, who had been seen proceeding on foot, had a rifle in his hand. Pointing their departmental rifles towards the said four miscreants, the forest personnel ordered the miscreants to put their hands up. In return, however, the miscreants opened fire from their rifle. The firing from the miscreants made the forest officials fire two rounds of bullets. One of the bullets, so fired, hit the left arm of one of the miscreants causing injury to his left arm. While two of the miscreants, including the injured, were arrested, the other two managed to flee away by taking advantage of darkness. The two arrested miscreants were asked to show if they were having any departmental permission allowing their entry into the forest, at night, with arms and ammunitions, but none of the said two miscreants (i.e., the present petitioners) could produce any such permission or paper. During interrogation, the two miscreants disclosed their names as Bijon Mahanta and Sangita Baruah. Forest personnel also looked for the boat, which they had seen, but after some search, though the boat was found, the persons, who had sailed away, could not be traced out. The arms and ammunitions found in the said boat and also with the said two apprehended miscreants were, then, seized. Altogether one 22 bore rifle, which accused Bijon Mahanta was carrying, along with 58 numbers of 22 bore ammunitions were seized. The forest officials also seized three 12 bore empty cartridges and seven 12 bore live cartridges. They also recovered and seized a license issued in respect of a 12 bore double-barreled gun, which stood in the name of Hiteswar Mahanta, father of accused Bijon Mahanta. Local police was informed about the incident and injured Bijon Mahanta was taken to Chariduar Hospital for primary treatment and from there, he was shifted to Tezpur Civil Hospital. Thereafter, accused Bijon Mahanta was taken to Guwahati (Gauhati) Medical College for treatment. An offence report was accordingly submitted against the accused-petitioners under Sections9/27/30/31/32/34/50/51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1952, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, and it is this offence report, which gave rise to CR Case No. 314/2005. The seized articles were also produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur.

(ii) In course of time, processes were also issued against the present two petitioners as accused. Since the license, issued in the name of Hiteswar Mahanta in respect of one 12 bore double-barreled gun, had been seized at the place of occurrence, the forest officials suspected that the said gun might have been carried to the National Park and used there by those two miscreants, who had fled away