IMPORTANT POINTS
Sanction of the District Magistrate is a pre-condition for initiating a successful prosecution against a person chargesheeted for an offence under Section 3 of Arms Act- Without a sanction being produced by the prosecution, the court ought not to have taken cognizance on the final report. In the case on hand from Annexure A6 it is crystal clear that such a document is not available with the documents proposed to be marked in evidence-The prosecution is unlikely to succeed in the proposed trial without sanction of the District Magistrate being procured and marked in evidence. Since production of sanction is a requirement that preceedes the filing of the prosecution, the same has to be procured sufficiently earlier and must find a place in the documents sought to be marked in evidence.

ORDER :

Annexure A1 FIR registered at Vattiyoorkavu Police Station and Annexure A6 final report filed after concluding investigation based on Annexure A1 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad and C.C.No.1595/2016 registered on it's file on the basis of those, are sought to be quashed in the petition on hand. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case. He was an Income Tax Officer.

2. The allegation of the prosecution was that on 14.10.2015 the officers of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI') had conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner, during the course of which they found 21 bottles of foreign liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquor kept in two almirahs situated at two bedrooms of the petitioner which totally measures 19 liters of liquor. The officials also found eight cartridges/bullets of gun from the hall of the house, kept in a purse inside the showcase of the almirah. The officials of the CBI informed the matter to the police and based on that the crime aforesaid was registered by Vattiyoorkkavu Police, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1B) Arms Act, and Section 55(a) and 63 of the Abkari Act (for short 'the Act'). The copy of the FIR is appended to the petition on hand as Annexure A1. During the course of investigation, a report was filed before the court, proposing to delete Section 55(a) of the Act from Annexure A1 FIR and to substitute Section 63 of the Act, therein, copy of which is appended to the petition on hand as Annexure A2. Copies of the recovery mahazar and list of properties prepared while forwarding the properties to the court were appended to the petition on hand, respectively as Annexure A3 and Annexure A5. Investigation was held and a final report was laid by the investigating officer before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad chargesheeting the petitioner as the sole accused and alleging that he had committed the offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and Section 63 of the Act, copy of which is appended to this petition as Annexure A6. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad, received the final report and registered C.C.No.1595/2016, on it's file, on it's basis.

3. The contention of Sri.V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the final report is devoid of relevant materials to convict the petitioner. It is urged by him that the investigating agency shall obtain sanction as contemplated under Section 39 of the Arms Act to prosecute the petitioner and without that being produced alongwith the final report, the court shall not take cognizance of that.

4. Section 39 of the Arms Act is extracted hereunder:

“Previous sanction of the district magistrate necessary in certain cases-No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate.”

Therefore, sanction is required to be obtained for successfully prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act. The counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Annexure A6 final report to submit that the documents listed alongwith, did not incorporate the sanction and therefore, inference possibly be drawn was that the prosecution failed to obtain the sanction prior to filing the final report to chargesheet the petitioner before the court.

5. The learned counsel has cited Romesh Sharma v. The State (2002(1) Crimes 497) and Javitri Devi v. State (CRLJ 1971 0 1340) to rest his contention that without sanction, being obtained for initiating a prosecution, the final report filed before the court chargesheeting an accused for an offence under Section 3 r/w 25(1B) of the Arms Act, will not sustain legally.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has procured a statement obtained from the Inspector of Police, Vattiyoorkavu Police Station and filed the same in the petition o