S.L. Kochar, J.

1. The Order of the Court was delivered by S.L. Kochar, J.: ON 4/4/2008, both the Criminal Revisions were listed before the learned Single Judge for final arguments. Learned Counsel for applicants argued before the learned Single Judge that for conviction of the applicants under Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act (for short "the Act"), sanction for prosecution of the applicants as per provision under Section 39 of the Act was necessary and at the time of according sanction by the sanctioning authority, arm in question was not produced by the Investigating Officer before the sanctioning authority, and sanctioning authority must satisfy itself that the instrument is such which is covered within the definition given in the Act. Learned Counsel for applicants placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Raju Dubey v. State of MP 1998 (1) JLJ 236

2. Smt Jaswant Kaur and Anr. v. State of UP State of MP 1999 Cr. L.R (MP) 80.

3. Prabhu Dayal and Anr. v. State of MP 2002 Cr.L.R (MP) 192.

2. On the contrary, learned Counsel for State relying on the wording of Section 39 of the Act, submitted before the learned Single Judge that Section does not require the prosecuting