JUDGMENT

B.D. Gupta, J. - This order will govern criminal revision Nos. 1690 of 1966; 1751 of 1966; 1752 of 1966; 1963 of 1966; 1964 of 1966 and 1965 of 1966. The applicants covered by these revisions stand convicted for offences under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The common plea, and the only plea, raised on behalf of the applicants in support of these revisions is that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of the applicants covered by these revisions. There is no controversy that in each of these cases sanction to prosecute was accorded by Mr. Girish Chandra, Additional District Magistrate. The contention raised by learned counsel was that Mr. Girish Chandra could not validly sanction prosecution because he was not a District Magistrate within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 39 of the Arms Act. Time was given to the learned counsel for the State to place before this Court material to indicate whether Mr. Girish Chandra was authorised to act as a District Magistrate and to accord sanction to prosecute the applicants for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act., The learned counsel for the State has today referred to a notification in Uttar Prad