A.N.Mulla, J. - (1.) Dhanpat appellant was convicted under Section 19 (f) of the Anns Act and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge Barabanki. He and two others were prosecuted under Sections 399 and 402 I.P. C., but all the accused were acquitted on that charge.
(2.) Dhanpat came up in appeal and his appeal came before one of us. The counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove any valid sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act and so the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. He also in a hesitant way critised the findings of the trial court. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the findings of the trial court are not assailable. There is enough evidence on the record of the case to prove that an unlicensed pistol with some catridges was found on the person of the appellant when he was arrested. On facts there was no force in this appeal, but in view of a conflict on the point of law raised in the case, this case was referred to a Divisional Bench of this court.
(3.) In order to appreciate the point of law, some facts may be stated. When the investigating agency framed a charge-sheet in this case it forwarded it to the District Magistrate, Barabanki to obtain his sanction and there is an endorsement on this charge-sheet which is as follows : "Prosecution sanctioned' and then there are some initials underneath this endorsement. This charge-sheet was exhibited in the court of the committing Magistrate but for some unknown reason it was not exhibited before the trial court. The counsel for the appellant contended that under the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act, no proceedings could have been instituted against the appellant in respect of an offence under Section 19 Clause (f) of the Indian Arms Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate and as this sanction has not been prov-ed and there is also no indication that the initials underneath the endorsement are those of the District Magistrate, the requirements of law have not been fulfilled and the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the case against the appellant under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act and so the order of conviction passed against the appellant was without jurisdiction and should be held to be null and void.;