The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act, 1959, depends on the specific offense under the Act, and the lack of credibility in witness testimonies can impact the court's decision.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. State of Haryana is aggrieved against the acquittal of Kala Singh recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa, on 22.1.1997 and has preferred present appeal against the acquittal. Accused/respondent Kala Singh was found in possession of one actuated knife having length of 6 inches. Recovery was effected on 28.6.1994.

2. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa, on 22.1.1997, acquitted the accused/respondent on the ground that sanction to prosecute accused/respondent was not obtained by the prosecution from the District Magistrate as the same was mandatory. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellant, has stated that under Sec.39 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "1959 Act") sanction is required in respect of offence under Sec.3 of 1959 Act and not for any other offence. According to the counsel, Sec.3 of 1959 Act only relates to possession of fire arms and ammunition. It is stated that since accused/respondent was not found in possession of any fire arms or ammunition, therefore, for recovery of knife, his case will fall under Sec.4 of 1959 act. He has brought into my notice notification bearing No. S. O.127/c. A.54/59/s.4/78 dated 15.9.1978 issued by the Haryana Government whereby all persons are prohibited for having in their possession spring actuated knife. It is stated that no sanction was required, therefore, the judgment of trial Court regarding acquittal of the accused on this score is liable to be set aside. The accused/respondent, on 14.11.1994, was charged for offence under Sec.25/54/59 of 1959 Act.

3. In the present appeal against acquittal, notice was issued and record was requisitioned.

4. The FIR was lodged on basis of ruqa Ex. PC sent by Bharat Lal, Head constable.

5. Bharat Lal, Head Constable was examined as PW.1 and Subhash Chand, constable, as PW.2.

6. Bharat Lal, Head Constable, stated that on 28.6.1994, he along with his companion police officials, went to Guthala Garhu in connection with investigation of case FIR No.184 dated 27.6.1994 registered at Police Station pehowa, under Sections 285, 336, 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, when on the personal search of accused Kala Singh a knife was recovered from the right fold of his chadra. Length of knife was 6 inches. The recovered knife was exhibited as Ex. P1. The knife was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB and memo was attested by Juna Ram and Subhash Chand, constables. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he has no knowledge when case FIR No.184 was registered. He also denied knowledge as to when the information was received. This witness further stated that he was not able to remember whether brothers of accused were present when the recovery was effected. He further stated that he was not able to remember whether on that day, he had arrested any person or not. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that accused/respondent Kala Singh had filed a complaint under sections 342, 323 and 506 IPC against him. This complaint was filed after registration of case FIR No.184. The witness was cross-examined regarding the typography of the house of the accused. He stated that he was not able to remember as to how many houses were situated near the house of accused. PW.2 subhash Chand, Constable, also stated that he along with Bharat Lal, Head constable, had seen the accused at a long distance. When the police reached near the accused, he had not moved from the place where he was standing. The accused was standing under the kikkar trees towards south of the dera. After the knife was recovered, the accused was brought to the Court. A perusal of the evidence show that on most of the material aspects, Bharat Lal, Head constable, was evasive. He admitted that accused had filed a complaint against him, therefore, he was inimical against the accused/respondent when his testimony was recorded. In the present case, no independent witness has been examined. When t