V.P.Mathur - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction under section 25 of the Arms Act, passed by Mr. B. P. Mehrotra, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, on 10-1-1979, against the appellant. He has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. It may be mentioned here that he was additionally charged under sections 148 and 307/149 IPC but on these charges acquittal has been recorded.
(2.) THE facts are not disputed and the only argument advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the sanction is invalid inasmuch as the recovered fire arm and ammunition were never presented before the District Magistrate and, therefore, there was no justification for him to have come to a conclusion that it was a fit case in which sanction should be accorded. THE matter stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Bachchoo Singh v. State, 1969 AWR 418 where it has been held that requirement of section 39 is that sanction of the District Magistrate must be obtained before launching of the prosecution in respect of an offence mentioned in section 3 of the Arms Act In giving this sanction the District Magistrate must certainly apply his mind to the facts of the case and be aware of the circumstances under which the sanction was being accorded. But in giving the sanction, there is no duty imposed upon him to inspect the fire arm first. It may, of course, be said that he must be satisfied about the factum of recovery of the fire arm from the possession of a certain person but in order to get satisfied he need not himself see the fire arm. He may be satisfied to that effect from a perusal of the papers which are put up before him, which may disclose recovery of the facts; and circumstances under which the recovery is made. In view of this law, there is no defect in the sanction in the present case also merely on the ground that the sanction order does not mention that the fire arm and the ammunition were seen by the District Magistrate. The order is very clear. The District Magistrate perused all the papers concerning this case and came to the conclusion that there was justification for granting the sanction. He did apply his mind and there the matter ends. The next contention was that the sentence awarded is excessive. I do not agree. One year's rigorous imprisonment has been awarded. Thers is also no evidence on record to show that this accused is a member of a gang and that his brother was also present at Dhar (Kothari), which is a construction for residence at the tube-well, and he managed to make good his escape. Of course, on the record the prosecution has not placed any documentary evidence to show that the accused was previously convicted or that any other case is pending against him, but the facts and circumstances that from the same Dhar two persons earlier abducted were recovered, are in themselves sufficient to disentitle the accused-appellant to any lenient: sentence or even to get the benefit of the provisions of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let the accused appellant surrender before the court below to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. Appeal dismissed.;