Back
1967 Supreme(All) 16
Allahbad High Court
GANGESHWARPRASAD
Jawahar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 02/10/1967
Virendra Saran, for Applicant; Addl. Govt. Advocate, for Respondent.
Headnote:
Sanction - Arms Act - Additional District Magistrate - The court held that an Additional District Magistrate cannot sanction a prosecution under S. 39 of the Arms Act without being empowered by the State Government. The sanction granted by the Additional District Magistrate without the empowerment from the State Government was deemed incompetent, leading to the acquittal of the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was convicted under S. 25 of the Arms Act based on a sanction given by an Additional District Magistrate, who was not empowered by the State Government to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional District Magistrate was incompetent to accord the sanction, as the requirement of a sanction as an essential condition of a prosecution is contained in Section 39 of the Arms Act, and the expression 'District Magistrate' cannot have an extended meaning as assigned in the Arms Rules.
Issues: The issue raised was whether an Additional District Magistrate can sanction a prosecution under S. 39 of the Arms Act without being empowered by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definitions provided by the Arms Rules cannot be applied to expressions used in the Act, and the Additional District Magistrate concerned was not directed by the State Government to sanction prosecution under the Arms Act, making the sanction incompetent.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the applicant were set aside, and he was acquitted.
2. The applicant was convicted under S. 25 of the Arms Act by the trying Magistrate and his conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge. It is not in dispute that the sanction on the basis of which the prosecution started had been given by an Additional District Magistrate, and the learned Assistant Government Advocate has, after enquiry, state before me that the Additional District Magistrate, who sanctioned the prosecution, had not been directed or empowered by the State Government to Act under S. 39 of the Arms Act.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Additional District Magistrate was incompetent to accord the sanction. This point was raised before the trying Magistrate as well, but he took the view that since under Rule 2(f) of the Arms Rules, 1962 a District Magistrate includes, in relation to any district or part thereof, an Additional District Magistrate, the sanction in the present case was valid. The Magistrate was evidently wrong in this view.
4. The definitions provided by the Arms Rules govern the Rules only and they cannot be applied to expressions used in the Act. The requirement of a sanction as an essential condition of a prosecution is contained not in the Rules but in Section 39 of the Act, and the expression 'District Magistrate' cannot therefore have in the said provision, that extended meaning which has been assigned to it by the definition given in the Rules Under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is certainly open to the State Government to direct that a Magistrate appointed as an Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law for the time being in force. But, as I have already noted, it is conceded on, behalf of the State that the State Government had not directed the Additional District Magistrate concerned to sanction prosecution under the Arms Act. The sanction purporting to have been granted by the Additional District Magistrate was, therefore, incompetent and the prosecution of the applicant was accordingly barred from cognizance.
5. The application is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside, and he is acquitted. The applicant is on bail; he need not surrender to his bail and his bail bonds are discharged.
Application allowed.
