S.D. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed Under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a review of an order passed by me in Cr. Appeal No. 2762 of 1964 on 25 -10 -1967, by which order the Applicant was convicted Under Section 19(f) of the old Arms Act and sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment thereunder.
(2.) THE recovery of the unlicensed arm from the Applicant was made on 26 -4 -1962 and the charge sheet against the Applicant was submitted Under Section 19(f) of the old Arms Act on 8 -6 -1962. The Applicant was convicted by the Magistrate under his judgment dated 11 -9 -1962, but his conviction was set aside by the Sessions Judge, Etah, in appeal and the Applicant was directed to be retried for the same offence. The Magistrate, before whom the case came up for retrial, acquitted the Applicant and thereupon the Government filed the Government Appeal No. 2762 of 1964 aforesaid which was allowed by this Court. The main contention of the Applicant in this application for review was that the Applicant having been retried by the Magistrate Sri K.K. Randhar after the new Arms Act (54 of 1959) had come into force, he should have been charged Under Section 25 of the aforesaid Act and convicted thereunder and that for his prosecution under the aforesaid provision, the sanction of the District Magistrate Under Section 39 of the new Arms Act should have been obtained. In the first place the Applicant is not entitled to be heard on these questions Under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question that the Applicant could be charged only Under Section 25 of the new Arms Act and that sanction of the District Magistrate for his prosecution was necessary Under Section 39 was never raised either before the Magistrate who retried the Applicant or before this Court when the Government Appeal came up for hearing. Apart from this the contention has no force on its own merits. The offence was committed in April, 1962, when the old Act was in force and the offence committed by the Applicant was, therefore, one punishable Under Section 19(f) of that Arms Act. The Applicant may have been retried for that offence after the new Arms Act had come into force but as the language of Section 25 of this Act stands, it can apply to an offence committed after the commencement of the Arms Act, 54 of 1959, i.e. on or after 1 -10 -1962. Then Section 25 begins with the words "whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries" which are all verbs in the present tense which leads to the inference that the offences made punishable Under Section 25 are those which are committed on or sifter the commencement of this Act. Section 3 to which reference is made in Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) of Section 25 also read; "No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any fire arm or ammunition" and this also suggests that the section would be applicable only to acts or omissions done or indulged in on or after the commencement of the Act. The Applicant could not, therefore, be charged Under Section 25 read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, 54 of 1959.
(3.) SO far as the question of sanction is concerned, it relates only to prosecution in respect of an offence Under Section 3 of Act 54 of 1959. If, therefore, the offence which was committed before the commencement of this Act is not covered by Section 3, aforesaid, it follows that even Section 39 will not be applicable to it. The sanction of the District Magistrate Under Section 39 will be necessary only in the case of an offence committed since the commencement of the new Act and punishable Under Section 25 read with Section 3 of the Act. If an offence was committed prior to the commencement of this Act and was punishable not under this Act but Under Section 19(f) of the old Arms Act the provision for prior sanction Under Section 39 of the new Act will not apply to it.;