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 state