O. H. MOOTHAM, CJ.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for the revision of an order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Budaun, dated 15-3-1958, dismissing an appeal from an order of a learned Magistrate convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

( 2 ) THE offence was committed in village Palia Danda, and as that village is north of the river ganga the applicant was prosecuted without the sanction of the District Magistrate. It is common ground that under Section 29 of the Act the sanction of the District Magistrate for the institution of proceedings under Section 19, Clause (f) is not necessary if the offence is committed north of the Ganga, although it is necessary if it be committed south of that river. The applicant contended that the descrimination made in Section 29 between the two classes of offences was unconstitutional, and he relied on Mehar Chand v. State 1959 All LJ 464 : (AIR 1959 All 660 ). In that case a Division Bench of this Court held that the discrimination made in Section 29 contravened Article 14 of the Constitution and that in consequence sanction was necessary in the case of all prosecutions under Section 19, Clause (f), so much of Section 29 as rendered this procedure unnecessary being void. The correctness of that decision having been doubted, this application has been referred to this Bench.

( 3 ) AT the outset of the argument the learned Advocate General informed the Court that the State did not propose to challenge the opinion expressed in Mehar Chands case, 1959 All LJ 464: (AIR 1959 All 660) that Section 29 of the Act created a classification which was unconstitutional but it did question the correctness of the finding of the Court that in all cases under Section 19, Clause (f), the sanction of the District Magistrate must be obtained. The advocate-Generals contention is that the necessary consequence of the conclusion that the classification is unconstitutional is that the entire section is invalid and that the sanction of the district Magistrate is not required in any case. In the circumstances therefore we do not consider it necessary for this Bench to consider further the question of the constitutionality of the impugned section.

( 4 ) SECTION 29 reads thus :

"29. Sanction required to certain proceedings under Section 19 Clause (f ).-- Where an offence punishable under Section 19, Clause (f), has been committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into force in any State, district or place to which Section 32, Clause 2 of the Act XXXI of 1860 applies at such date, or where such an offence has been committed in any part of India not being such a district. State or place, no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of such offence without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the district or, in a presidency town, of the Commissioner of Police. "

The section therefore provides that sanction is required in two classes of cases, namely (a)where the offence has been committed within three months from the date on which the Act comes into force in any of the areas referred to in the section, and (b) where the offence has been committed elsewhere. Clause (a) has now ceased to be of practical importance, and it will be observed that this section does not provide, in respect of cases not falling in either class (a) or class (b), that the prosecution can be launched without first obtaining sanction. That is a consequence of the general law contained in Section 190 read with Section 5 of the Cr. P. O.

( 5 ) THE unconstitutional distinction between persons charged with an offence under Section 19. Clause (f), committed north of the Ganga and persons charged with the same offence committed south of that river was made by Section 29 itself. The section divides offences into two classes according to where they are committed; that division is ex hypothesi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document