Arms Act

( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by one Gayadin who has been convicted under Section 19 (f), Arms act, and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment. The applicant is a resident of Qaimganj in the District of Farrukhabad. On 12-11-1953 at about 7 P. M. he was found in possession of a country made pistol and two cartridges. At that time he was in a grove near the Qaimganj primary School. On receiving information about it, the station officer Qaimganj, Sri M. P. Agnihotri, came to the spot taking with him a Circle Inspector, a number of constables and some members of the public. The applicant was found in the company of another person. Both of them were arrested and searched. From the person of the applicant one pistol (Ext. I) and two live cartridges (Ex. II) were recovered. The police framed a charge-sheet in respect of the case, and submitted to the district Magistrate for sanctioning the prosecution of the applicant under Section 19 (f), Arms act. The sanction was given. The accused was prosecuted. He was tried by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Qaimgan. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He denied that Exhibits I and II, the pistol and cartridges were recovered from him. He further alleged that he was going to the railway station when he was suddenly arrested by the police.

( 2 ) THE prosecution examined a number of witnesses to prove the afore-mentioned recovery. Nazar Ali (P. W. 1) is a vendor at the railway station, Sri M. P. Agnihotri is the station officer and Daulat Mir Khan is another witness. All these witnesses unanimously deposed that the illicit arms (Exts. I and II) were recovered from the possession of the accused under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. The accused examined one witness namely Banwari Lal in support of his case. The trial Court believed the prosecution version, and disbelieved the case of the applicant. It, accordingly, convicted the applicant under Section 19 (f ). Arms Act and sentenced him as above. The applicant went up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad. His appeal having been dismissed, he has filed this revision in the High Court.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant in this case has not contested the findings of the courts below on merits. He has, however, argued that the trial of the accused in the present case has been vitiated on three grounds, namely, (1) there is nothing to show that the sanctioning authority applied its mind before according the sanction, (2) the sanction granted in the present case is vague and (3) that, in any case the signature of the District Magistrate on the sanction is not proved.

( 4 ) AS to the first argument, it is no doubt true that it is necessary that the sanctioning authority should apply its mind to the facts of the case before granting the sanction. It is, however, to be remembered that all that the sanctioning authority is required to do is to see whether, on the face of it, there exists a prima facie case for the grant of the sanction. It is not required to go into minute details of evidence against the accused. If the circumstances of the case indicate that tile material facts of the case were brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority, and the sanctioning authority passed its order taking the said material into consideration, I am of opinion, that the requirements of the law would be complied with. In the present case, the facts are that the police framed a charge-sheet against the applicant. This charge-sheet mentions the name of the applicant as an accused. It also gives a list of the articles recovered from his possession. It further gives a list of the witnesses and a brief summary of the facts of the case. It also contains an endorsement by the prosecuting authorities to the following effect:

"submitted to D. M. for sanction of the prosecution of the accused under Section 19 (f) of the arms Act. "

This endorsement is dated 4-12-1953. Below this endorsement there is an order purp