- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against the order of the lower appellate court confirming conviction of appellant with offence of possessing unlicensed pistol and live cartridges without licence, punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act and his sen tence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.
(2.) CONSISTENT finding of fact recorded by the two lower court is that on 4th October, 1986 revisionist Yogendra Kumar was found in possession of unlicensed pistol and live cartridges without licence required under Section 3 of the Arms Act. This revision was admitted on the point of sentence only. But when the revision was taken up for hearing it was found that in 1983 Arms Act was amended and minimum sentence of one year was made compulsory. The learned counsel for the revisionist then urged that sanction for prosecution, as required under Section 39 of the Arms Act is wholly illegal because it was granted by A. D. M. (Revenue and Finance ). On this contention of the learned counsel lower court record was summoned and perused. It emerges from the lower court record that revisionist was prosecuted on the basis of sanction for prosecution (Ex. Ka-4) granted by Sri Girdhar Lal who accorded the sanction and signed the same as Additional District Magistrate (Revenue & Finance ). In the body of the sanction he said that he was exercising powers of District Magistrate Banda. But in the sanction there is nothing to show that the A. D. M. (R) was officiating as District Magistrate, Banda. There is no evidence that the said A. D. M. (R.) was officiating as District Magistrate, Banda. It thus, follows that an A. D. M. granted sanction for prosecution purporting to act on behalf of the District Magistrate. Section 39 of the Arms Act lays down that no prosecution should be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanc tion of the District Magistrate. Section 3 relates to licence. Offence under Section 25 was of possessing arm without licence under Section 3 of the Act. Consequently, sanction under Section 39 of the Act was necessary for prosecution. "district Magistrate" has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act and this definition does not show that this word includes A. D. M. when a specific authority has been authorised to grant sanction only that authority can grant-a valid sanction. The A. D. M. was not entitled to grant sanction. Thus it follows that sanction (Ex. Ka. 4) was invalid. Prosecution of the revisionist was illegal. His conviction and sentence can not be maintained. In result, revision is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the revisionist are set aside. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. .;