The lack of space for depositing the gun and the incorrect application of sanction for prosecution weakened the prosecution's case, influencing the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.

G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J.

This is an appeal filed under Section 378, Cr. P. C. , against the order of acquittal passed by the C. J. M. , Pilibhit on a charge under Section 21 (1) of the Arms Act.

2. The main allegation against the accused is that Shanti Swarup Saxena s/o Chottey Lal was a licence- holder of Licence No. 906 in respect of a D. B. L. Gun, Sri Saxena died on 29-11-84. His son, Sri Ajai Kumar depo sited the gun with Mishra Gun House, Station Road, Pilibhit. However, he held it with him from 30-11-84 to 12-1-85 without a licence. Therefore, he committed an offence under Section 21 (1) of the Arms Act.

3. The accused in his plea taken in the court below stated that there was no space available with Mishra Gun House for depositing the gun. There fore, he expressed his inability to keep it with him. As and whoa the space was available, he deposited the gun without any loss of time. Thus, he com mitted no offence.

4. The prosecution examined Kashi Prasad Mishra, PW 1. He has admitted this fact that there was no space available with him for depositing the gun up to 12-1-85. So he supports inherently the version of the accused.

5. Another fault of the prosecution case was that whereas the District Magistrate granted sanction for prosecution under Section 25, Arms Act, the prosecution was launched under Section 21 (1) of the Arms Act. Therefore, there was no application of mind in granting the sanction. The entire prose cution is liable to be thrown out on this ground alone.

6. After perusal of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned trial court committed no error either on fact or on law. His judgments is perfectly correct, which does not permit any interference by this Court.

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document