An Additional District Magistrate who has been invested with the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has the power to accord sanction for prosecution under Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act.

R.P.Khosla, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the Punjab State is from an appellate judgment of acquittal.

2. The respondent, Inder Singh, resident of village Malikpur was tried upon charge of having been found in possession of one country made .12 bore pistol and one .12 bore live cartridge without requisite permit or licence. Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, found him guilty and while convicting under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act 1959 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. On appeal, Sessions Judge, Karnal, upon the findings that the sanction for prosecution postulated under Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act (No. 54 of 1959) had been accorded by the Additional District Magistrate whereas it ought to have been by the District Magistrate, held the trial vitiated and acquitted the respondent.

3. Mr. Gaur appearing in support of the instant appeal on the strength of the provisions of Section 10, sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reading -

"10(2) The State Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional District Magistrate and such Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code, or under any other law for the time being in force as the State Government may direct."

... .... ... .... contended that the Additional District Magistrate in the instant case had pursuant to the said provisions been invested with the powers of the District Magistrate vide Punjab Government Gazette Notification No. 8610 ASI-72/41987 dated 21st of November, 1962. The terms of the notification might be set hereinunder :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to appoint M.R. Vaid, a Magistrate of the 1st Class in the Karnal District to be an Additional District Magistrate, M.R. Vaid, is hereby invested with all the powers of the District Magistrate under the said Code and under any other law for the time being in force, from the date he takes oever, charge of such duties in the district."

4. The argument envolved that "the District Magistrate" contemplated by the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act was not persona designata and the sanction accorded by the Additional District Magistrate who had been invested with the powers of a District Magistrate satisfied the requirements of those provisions, appears to have merit.

5. Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act is worded as follows :

"39. No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate."

For purpose of according sanction the provisions undoubtedly have the District Magistrate in view; but the State Government under Section 10, sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is competent to appoint, firstly any Magistrate of the 1st Class to be an Additional District Magistrate and secondly to invest that Additional District Magistrate with the powers of a District Magistrate under the code as well as for any other law in operation. That was done in the instant case by the State Government vide Notification set out above. The word "under any other law" used in the notification covered Indian Arms Act. Exhibit P.E. the sanction for prosecution accorded by the Additional District Magistrate, therefore, was valid and satisfied the requirements of the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act (No. 54 of 1959).

6. This view finds support from the findings in The State v. Hussain Mirdha and others, AIR 1960 Assam 45. The case was under the old Arms Act. The sanction for prosecution granted under Section 29 of the said Act by the Additional District Magistrate was questioned. Deka, J. (Mehrotra, J. concurring) observed that empowering the Additional District Magistrate u