Late submission of the sanction order under Section 39 of the Arms Act does not render it illegal, and the admissibility of the sanction order will be determined at the time of final arguments.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 17.08.2019 passed by the trial Court in FIR No.234 dated 15.11.2016 under Sections 307/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide which application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') filed by the prosecution, was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Reena Sharma wife of petitioner Rohit Mandhok with the allegations that their marriage was solemnized about one and half years ago and the petitioner started putting pressure on her to take divorce. It is further stated in the FIR that on 14.11.2016, when both of them were travelling in a car, the petitioner took out his pistol and fired upon the complainant and the bullet struck on the left side of her stomach. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and released on regular bail and is facing the trial. Challan stands presented and the charges were framed on 03.06.2017 under Sections 307/506 IPC read with Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act.

3. When the challan was presented, the prosecution had not taken any permission from the Court for obtaining the sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act from the District Magistrate, at a later stage and after about two years, when the Investigating Officer/ASI Paramjit Singh appeared in the Court for recording his statement, a copy of the sanction order was handed over to counsel for the petitioner and an objection was raised in this regard. Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning a Clerk from the office of District Magistrate, SAS Nagar (Mohali). In the application, it is stated that District Magistrate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) has granted the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, which may be allowed to be placed on record, otherwise, right of the complainant will be prejudiced, as summoning of a Clerk from the office of District Magistrate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) is necessary to be examined for fair decision of the case.

4. This application was contested by the petitioner by filing the reply, in which it is stated that challan was presented on 01.04.2017 and at that time, no sanction was obtained under Section 39 of Arms Act and was not produced on record. It is further stated in the reply that as per Section 39 of Arms Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate and therefore, procuring the sanction order subsequent to submission of challan, cannot cure the defect in the prosecution/investigation. It is also stated in the reply that by filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacuna in the evidence and therefore, the application be dismissed.

5. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 17.08.2019, allowed the application, by passing the following order: -

"...In the present case, inter-alia, challan under Section 25 of the Arms Act was presented on 01.04.2017 and the charge was framed on 03.06.2017. No doubt, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have sought the sanction for the prosecution of the accused from District Magistrate prior to the submission of challan. However, late submission of the said sanction could not be termed as illegal. If the sanction is produced by the prosecution, it has to be given due opportunity to prove the same. "The admissibility of a document and effect which it would have on the merits of the case has to be considered at the time of final argument." In the considered opinion of this Court, affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove a document would not cause any prejudice to the accused as the accused would have the ample opportunity to cross-examine the said witness.

Authority rel