A. N. MULLA, J. :- Dhanpat appellant was convicted under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment by the additional Sessions Judge Barabanki. He and two other were prosecuted under Ss 399 and 402 I.P.C. but all the accused were acquitted on that charge.

2. Dhanpat came up in appeal and his appeal came before one of us. The counsel the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove any valid sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under Sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act and so the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. He also in a hesitant way criticised the findings of the trial court. So far as the merits of the case are concerned the findings of the trial court are not assailable. There is enough evidence on the record of the case to prove that an unlicensed pistol with some cartridges was found on the person of the appellant when he was arrested. On facts there was no force in this appeal, but in view of a conflict on the point of law raised in the case, this case was referred to a Divisional Bench of this court.

3. In order to appreciate the point of law, some facts may be stated. When the investigating agency trained a charge-sheet in this case it forwarded it to the District Magistrate, Barabanki to obtain his sanction and there is an endorsement on this charge-sheet which is as follows :

'Prosecution sanctioned' and then there are some initials underneath this endorsement. This charge-sheet was exhibited in the court of the committing Magistrate but for some unknown reason it was not exhibited before the trial court. The counsel for the appellant contended that under the provisions of Sec. 29 of the Indian Arms Act, no proceedings could have been instituted against the appellant in respect of an offence under Sec. 19 Cl. (f) of the Indian Arms Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate and as this sanction has not been proved and there is also no indication that the initials underneath the endorsement are those of the District Magistrate, the requirements of law have not been fulfilled and the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the case against the appellant under Sec. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act and so the order of conviction passed against the appellant was without jurisdiction and should be held to be null and void.

4. On behalf of the State it was contended that no sanction was necessary for an offence committed in the Barabanki district and even if it is held that the sanction has not been proved, it will not vitiate the proceedings. Secondly, if was contended that if a sanction is held to be necessary, such a sanction was obtained in this case from the proper sanctioning authority and it was even exhibited in the court of the committing Magistrate. The failure to exhibit this sanction before the trial court does not amount to instituting the proceedings without obtaining the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. Thirdly, it was contended that the charge sheet was a public document within the meaning of Sec. 74 sub-clause (3) of the Indian Evidence Act and the Court can tike judicial notice of this document under Sec. 57(7) of the same Act.

5. The following questions arise for determination in this case :

1. Was the obtaining of a sanction necessary before instituting proceedings in this case ?

2. Can the Court take judicial notice of this sanction under Sec. 57(7) of the Indian Evidence Act, even though it was not exhibited before the trial court.

6. On the first question I find myself in agreement with the contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant. In my opinion a sanction is necessary before a prosecution can be launched under Sec. 19(f) of the Arms Act. I will cite S. 29 of the Indian Arms Act (Act XI of 1878). It runs as follows :

"Where an offence punishable under Sec. 19 clause (f), has been committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into force in a