ORDER

Heard Sri.Shathabish Shivanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashoda, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 07.01.2021 by which the District Magistrate accords sanction for initiation of prosecution against the petitioner as obtaining in Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short).

3. The petitioner is in possession of an Arms license having been granted to him on 16.08.2018 along with an exemption certificate for its usage. On 01.09.2019, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.39/2019 against the petitioner. Pursuant to the registration of a crime, the Arm is seized in PF report No.57/2019. Later, the District Magistrate in terms of the impugned order on 07.01.2021 accords sanction for initiation of prosecution against the petitioner under the Arms Act. The according of sanction is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes this Court through the Arms Act seeking to demonstrate that the according of Sanction under Section 39 is only for any offence under Section 3 of the Act. There is no offence committed by the petitioner which would be an ingredient of offence under Section 3 of the Act and therefore would seek that the sanction accorded is without jurisdiction.

5. The learned HCGP would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is charged with the offences under Sections 3 and 25 of the Act and sanction is accorded for prosecution. After having proved that the petitioner has indulged in hunting a wild animal while using the arm which he ought not to have done, he would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue rise in a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of an arms license and an exemption is granted along with the arms licence for its usage in the area, for his personal protection. It is alleged that the petitioner has breached the safe keep of the Arm and has used it for the purpose of hunting a wild animal. It is then the proceedings emanate from the hands of the District Magistrate under the Act. The District Magistrate passes the impugned order according sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under the arms act. The order impugned reads as follows:

“¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÀÆAqÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ CuÁÚ¼ÀªÀiÁqÀ ªÀÄÄvÀÛ¥Àà @ ªÀÄÄvÀÄÛ ©£ï )ÉÃmï ¥ÀƪÀAiÀÄå ¥ÀgÀPÀlUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ, ©gÀÄ£Át ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà CgÉÆæ CuÁÚ¼ÀªÀiÁqÀ ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå @ C±ÉÆÃPÀ ©£ï )ÉÃmï ¥ÀƪÀAiÀÄå ¥ÀgÀPÀlUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ, ©gÀÄ£Át gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CPÀæªÀĪÁV CgÀtå ¥ÀæªÉò¹ PÁqÀÄ ¥Áæt PÀqÀªÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃmÉAiÀiÁVrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÁgÀvÀ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 11959gÀ PÀ®A 39gÀr £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ C©üAiÉÆÃUÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ CuÁÚ®ªÀiÁqÀ ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå @ C±ÉÆÃPÀ ©£ï )ÉÃmï ¥ÀƪÀAiÀÄå ¥ÀgÀPÀlUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ, ©gÀÄ£Ár EªÀjUÉ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: E¹/</b></</b>b>752/</b>2017-18gÀ°è «£ÁAiÀÄw ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: E¹/</b></</b>b>43/</b>2018-19 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-08-2018£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹ J¸ï.©.©.J)ï PÉÆë

¸ÀASÉå:4202£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrzÉ."

8. The order granting sanction drives the petitioner to this Court. The sanction is accorded by the District Magistrate in terms of Section 39 of the Indian Arms act. Section 39 reads as follows:

“Previous sanction of the district magistrate necessary in certain cases.―No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate.”

For according sanction under Section 39, an offence under Section 3 has to be allegedly committed by a holder of an arms licence. It is germane to notice