Venkatarama Aiyar, J. - (1.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal 69 of 1961 Jia Lal was searched by the Delhi Police on April 15, 1959 and was found to be in possession of an English pistol for which he held no licence. He was then prosecuted for an offence under S. 20 of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (XI of 1878), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' before the Additional Sessions Judge Delhi who convicted him under S. 19 (f) of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months. No sanction for the prosecution had been obtained as required by S. 29 of the Act. The appellant then took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Punjab which confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to 4 1/2 months rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment that this appeal by special leave is directed.
(2.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal 62 of 1960 Bhagwana was searched by the Saharanpur Police on August 6, 1956 and was found to be in possession of a country-made pistol and four cartridges for which he held no licence. He was prosecuted before the City Magistrate, Saharanpur under S. 19 (f) of the Act and was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. No sanction was obtained for his prosecution, obviously because under S. 29 of the Act it is not required when the offences are committed in certain areas and Saharanpur is within those areas. The appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur but the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appellant then took the matter in revision to the High Court of Allahabad which rejected the same but granted certificate under Art. 134 (1) of the Constitution. This is how this appeal comes before us. Though the two appeals arise out of two different prosecutions unconnected with each other, they were heard together as the same questions of law arise for determination in both.
(3.) The first question that arises for our decision is whether S. 29 of the Act is unconstitutional and void as contravening Art. 14, in that it requires sanction for prosecution for offences under the Act, when they are committed in some areas, but not in others. Section 29 of the Act is as follows:- "Where an offence punishable under Section 19, Clause (f), has been committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into force in any State, district or place to which Section 32, Clause 2 of Act XXXI of 1960 applies at such date, or where such an offence has been committed in any part of India not being such a district, State or place no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of such offence without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the district or, in a presidency town of the Commissioner of Police." For a correct understanding of the true scope of the sanction, it is necessary to refer to the history of the Legislation relating to it.;