The main legal point established in the judgment is that a valid sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is essential for prosecution, and the prosecution cannot sustain in the absence of a valid sanction.

JUDGMENT :

Both these revisions are arising out of the judgments and orders dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case Nos.372 of 2008 and Criminal Case No.374 of 2008 whereby the revisionist-Sukkha @ Santokh Singh, Sukhdev Singh @ Dodi @ Manjeet Singh and Santa Singh @ Santa were convicted for an offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation that further sentence of ten days shall be served by them in case of default of payment of fine.

2. The revisionists took the matter against the conviction and sentence in the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2009. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge vide its judgments and orders dated 08.03.2013 dismissed the appeals filed by the revisionists and affirmed the judgments of conviction rendered by learned trial court vide its judgments and orders dated 27.07.2009.

3. Feeling aggrieved, revisionists is before this Court.

4. The facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that on 02.04.1999 at about 08:00 p.m. and on 10.04.1999 at 08:00 p.m. the complainant, In-charge Inspector, Kiccha Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav alongwith S.I. Madan Pal Singh and other employees were out in search of accused persons, wanted in Case Crime No.185 of 199 under Sections 364-A IPC. As soon as police party reached near Haldwani Bypass, the revisionists Santokh Singh and Sukhdev Singh were intercepted and arrested; on being searched a “Tamancha” (country made pistol) 315 bore was recovered from the trousers of the revisionists/accused and two live cartridges were also recovered. Similarly, as per the prosecution, revisionist Santa Singh was also intercepted and arrested on Bareilly Road, in front of Chauhan Dhaba and on being searched a Tamancha (country made pistol) 315 bore working condition, was recovered from him with two live cartridges. Revisionists/accused had no license to keep these weapons with them. The fard memo was prepared, the accused have taken into custody and the weapons were sealed. The revisionists/accused as well as the arms recovered from them were entered into police station and the separate case crime number was registered against them.

5. After investigation, the separate charge sheets were submitted against the revisionists. During the course of the investigation, as required under Section 39 of the Arms Act, the sanction was sought from the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and a sanction letter was written under by the then District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 08.04.1999. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.W.1 S.I. Jaswant Singh, P.W.2 Constable Ganesh Kumar and P.W.3 S.I. Dev Singh and the statement of the revisionists/accused under Section 313 of IPC were recorded. Accordingly, the accused were convicted by the trial court as well as by the appellate court.

6. Heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the revisionists and Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, AGA for the State.

7. This Court is aware of its power acting under the court of revisional capacity and while dealing with the revision there is a limited power with the Court only to look into the illegality, impropriety and correctness of the judgment under revision.

8. The counsel for the revisionists has assailed the judgments impugned only on a legal ground that the sanction required under Section 39 of the Arms Act is not a mere formality. He submitted that the sanction by the District Magistrate is not a formality but it has got certain meaning and it goes to the root of the prosecution. He further submits that once the Court comes to this conclusion that the sanction is defective and it has not been given with the application of mind, the prosecution case would crumbled down completely. In order to substantiate his arguments, the counsel for the