Chopra, J. - (1.) CONVICTION of Gurdev Singh Respondent under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act was set aside in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, simply on the ground that the requisite sanction under Section 29 of the Act had not been duly tendered and proved. This is State appeal under Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the appellate judgment of acquittal pass ed by the Sessions Judge.
(2.) ORIGINAL sanction to prosecute Gurdev' Singh Respondent under the Arms Act our porting to be signed by the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, was presented along with the charge -sheet. No objection to its validity or as regard's the necessity of its formal proof was raised at any stage before the trial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge held the view that the sanction should have been duly tendered and exhibited and that some evidence must have been led to show that it bore the signature of the District Magistrate. The learned Judge has relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in 'Dharam Sarup v. The State : AIR 1953 All 37 (A). But I do not find anything in that judgment in support of the view taken by him. One of the objections raised in that case WAS that the sanction to prosecute the accused under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, had not been validly obtained inasmuch as the record did not show that the sanctioning authority did have before it the relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution was desired. The objection was over -ruled on the ground that to sanction prosecution rested solely with. the sanctioning authority and its exercise could not be questioned in a Court of law. Dealing with the objection Aggarwal J. observed: The Courts are concerned only with one mat -' ter - to find whether sanction for the particular prosecution was in fact accorded by the proper authority. If the record shows that the sanction was in fact accorded and the sanction was in respect of the particular transaction which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused, the requirements of the law are fully satisfied. The above observation rather goes to show that the sanction need only be placed on the record and no formal proof of it is required. A decision of the Calcutta High Court in 'Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Moazzem Hossain : AIR 1947 Cal 318 (B), has also been relied upon by Shri Narotam Singh learned Counsel for the Respondent, in support of the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The judgment in his case appears to have been based on its peculiar facts and cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that it is always necessary for the prosecution to lead formal proof of the sanction. The charge -sheet simply contained the one word order "Sanctioned" purporting to have been signed by the District Magistrate. It was more of a case where validity of the sanction was being questioned, but the learned Judge, without giving any reasons and taking into consideration the provisions of the Evidence Act in this connection, went on to observe that the sanction had not been legally proved.
(3.) AS already observed the original sanction under the signature of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, was produced in the Court of the trial Magistrate along with the charge -sheet. Section 57(7), Evidence Act, lays down that the Court shall take judicial notice of "the accession to office names, titles, functions and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any part of British India, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in any official Gazette!'. It is not disputed that the appointment of Sardar Prem Kumar as District Magistrate, Bhatinda, Was duly notified in the Pepsu Official Gazette and it cannot also be doubted that a District Magistrate holds a public office. The Court was, therefore bound to take judicial notice of the District Magistrate's posting name and signature. Section 56 of the Act further provides that a fact of. which the Court will take judicial notice, need not be proved. It is thus obvious that under the law the prosecution in the present case was not required to prove the District Magistrate's signature on the sanction.;