The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is a condition precedent for launching prosecution against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act.

By means of this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the order dated 12.06.12 delivered in Criminal Revision 11(3)/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala has been challenged. To place the requisite facts, it will be apposite to state that on the basis of the written ejahar dated 28.07.2009 lodged by one Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, Jirania P.S. case No. 43 of 2009 under Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act was registered and having observed the complicity of the petitioner in the said case he was arrested allegedly with the arms. After the investigation was complete, the final police report charge sheeting the petitioner under Section 25(i)(A), 25(i)(B) and 25(1)(c) of the Arms act was filed. The District Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, by his order dated 29.03.2010, Annexure-2 to this petition, after due verification and appreciation of the materials placed before him has accorded sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act to prosecute the petitioner.

2. At the time of the discussion of the charge the defence contended that no other charge can be framed against the accused beyond Section 25(i)(a). No charge can be framed under Sections 25(1c) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act. The plea that is raised is centered around that for implicating any one under Section 25 (1-c) of the Arms Act, the notification declaring an area as the disturbed area must exist as pre-requisite. As the notification has not been placed with the case records, the charge under the said section cannot be framed. To rebut such submission, the prosecution submitted the copy of the notification bearing No.F.22(2)-PD/2002 issued by the Home Department, Govt. of Tripura. Thus, the Judicial Magistrate First Class by the order dated 16.06.2011 discarded that plea of discharge, observing that:

“After pursuing the said notification it is noticed that the alleged P.O. in c/w this case was declared as disturbed area on the alleged date of occurrence of the incident as per the explanation appended in Sec. 25(1-c) of Arms Act.

On the other hand after perusal of the case record and the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. It is also noticed that accd. was found in his possession of Fire arms (9 MM Pistal loaded with 4 rounds of 9 MM ammunition in its magazine ) and the accd. also failed to show any license for such possession which clearly invokes Sec. 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act.

Thus as per the case record and the facts and circumstances charges u/s 25(1-B)(a) and u/s 25(1-c) of Arms is clearly established against the accd. Person. So in my considered opinion charges U/s 25(1B) (a) and U/s (1-c) of Arms may be framed against the accd. Person.”

3. Thus, the charge against the petitioner was proposed to be framed under Section 25(1B)(a) and (1-c) of the Arms Act, 1959. Being aggrieved by that order dated 16.06.2011, the petitioner filed a re-visional application questioning the legality of the said order, under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, being Crl.Rev.11(3) of 2011. By the said revision, the same plea was reiterated. But one additional plea was also raised emphasizing that no previous sanction of the District Magistrate was obtained. What is gathered from the records is that the ground of objection raised in the revision petition in the form of additional plea is that even though no specific sanction was granted, the charge was proposed to be framed. The said criminal revision was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura Agartala. By the judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 the said re-visional application was disposed of observing that:

“In my opinion, necessary sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is accorded by the District Magistrate, West Tripura to prosecute the accused petitioner. So, I do not find any illegality or any material irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, I am in the opinion that this revision petition