Passey, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by Chand Singh son of Jai Singh, of village Dialpura against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, dismissing his appeal and maintaining the order of the trial Magistrate convicting and, sentencing him to li years' R.I. under Section 19(f), Indian Arms Act.
(2.) IT was argued before me that the sanction obtained by the Police from the District Magistrate under Section 29, Indian Arms Act, was invalid and that that defect rendered the prosecution of the Petitioner illegal. Three unlicensed arms and some cartridges specified in the recovery memo Ex. PC were alleged to have been produced by the Petitioner on 18 -4 -1953 from a house jointly occupied by him and his brother. It is stated that the Petitioner had before producing them made a statement to S.I. Piare Lal admitting their possession and placement. The entire investigation had been completed by M. Piare Lal on 18 -4 -1953. On 19 -4 -1953 M. Gurdev Singh S.I. who is not shown to have had anything to do with the investigation or to have had any personal knowledge of the recovery or other facts of the case, made an application to the District Magistrate for sanctioning Chand Singh's prosecution. All that was stated in the application was that the arms specified therein had been recovered from THE possession of Chand Singh which possession far within the purview of Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. The learned District Magistrate wrote the word Sanctioned' on that application and put his signature under it. The police then forwarded the accused for trial to the Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa who has found him guilty and awarded the punishment stated above. It is clear from the application itself that only the name of the accused and the weapons that he was found in possession of were mentioned in it. The application did not show how, on what date, at what time, in whose presence and under what circumstances the possession of the arms was found to be that of the accused. The memo recovery even was not produced before the District Magistrate much less the zimnies or the statement of the accused alleged to have been recorded under Section 27, I. E. A. No evidence concerning sanction was led at the trial and M. Gurdev Singh even who was mentioned as witness in the calendar was given up as unnecessary witness.
(3.) NOW Section 29, Indian Arms Act prohibits institution of proceedings in a criminal Court against any person in respect of an offence under Section 19, Clause (f) without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. If no sanction as contemplated by Section 29 is obtained, the entire proceedings before the Magistrate would be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. It is true that there is no set form in which the sanction should be expressed nor is it necessary for the sanctioning authority to pen down elaborate reasons or any at all but the order of sanction must be based upon material indicating and comprising facts furnishing some proof of the crime. Section 29 was not enacted to provide for a mere formality of sanction. On the other hand, it creates a wholesome safeguard against false, frivolous and inexpedient prosecutions or those that may not for one reason or the other be desirable or in public interest. The District Magistrate although he deals with an application for sanction on the executive side, is expected to apply his mind to the facts relating to the offence placed before -him and then to exercise his discretion. It is necessary that the authority approached for sanction and competent to grant it should bestow due consideration to the accusation and the evidence oral or documentary produced before him in support of it. Further the order of sanction should either itself show that the relevant material was perused and considered before it was made or where the order is too brief that the material involving the accused had been placed before the sanctioning authority in which case the brevity of the order would become immaterial. In the present case, it is. not shown that the material evidence and facts leading to the accusation under Section 19 (f) were put before the District Magistrate and it would, therefore, be a, proper inference that he endorsed the word 'sanctioned' as if it were an automatic or routine thing to be done. The sanction in question therefore was not only an improper but an invalid sanction. That being so it would follow that there was no sanction to prosecute the Petitioner and the proceedings before the trial Court must be held to have been without jurisdiction. The revision is accepted and the Petitioner acquitted.;