N. K. JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 11-6-82 whereby the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated 17-6-80 was confirmed and the conviction u/s. 25 (l) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentence of one year R. I. was maintained.
(2.) BRIEF facts which give rise to this petition are that in pursuance of the information to police dated 24-6-75, by one Salim who was arrested in FIR No. 14/75 that he has given 10 rifles to the man who is sitting at Bus Stand, on the basis of this 10 rifles and 16 cartridges were recovered from the petitioner on 27-1-75 who was identified by Salim. After arresting petitioner vide Ex. P-2. a s-arch memo was prepared and thereupon FIR No 16/75 was registered against the petitioner and Salim. After due investigating and obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, both the accused were challaned u/s 25 of the indian Arms Act, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rai -. singhnagar. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Gopala Ram, PW and petitionerexamined himselr. In defend Gopiram was examined as DW 1 and petitioner examined himself. The leaned Magistrate after trial found that there is no evidence that Salim sold the ammunition to the petitioner and acquitted him but convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned ASJ, Raisinghnagar on 12-6-82. Hence this revision. Mr Manoj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sanction was not properly accorded. He has also submitted that the alleged arms were not proved to be fire arms as no report was called for and further submitted that co-accused Salim is acquitted by the court, so the conviction of the petitioner is illegal and the petition be accepted. He has placed reliance on Nanhey V Stated (1 ). Guljar Singh V The State of Maharastra (2) and Akha Singh V State of Raj. (3 ). Mr V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused tried after due sanction and there is sufficient evidence to show that they are arms and recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the trial court after appreciating the evidence has rightly dismissed the appeal, so no interference is called for. I have heard Mr, Manoj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. Under the Arms Act a person can be prosecuted only after the District Magistrate had given the necessary sanction for his prosecution. This Suction is not intended to be nor is an automatic formality. In the instant case sanction Ex. P. 4 is on record which reads as under.
(3.) IT is clear that the learned District Magistrate has accorded sanc-tum after fully applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Nanhey V State (supra) sanction was accorded without considering the evid- ence on record, so this case is not applicable. As per definition of ammunition and arms given in sec. 2 (1) (b) and Sec. 2 (1) (c), in the terms of ammunition which must be ammunition for the purpose of firearms several items are included which show the range right from rocketry to small balls usable as ammunition which can be objected and exploded effectively through the mechanism of fire-arms. In the inclusive definition even the ingredients of ammunition as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify are treated to be the ammunitions In terms of arms, in the essence, if the articles are sharp-edged and deadly weapons, the court may by mere look at it from its opinion and may conclude that it answers the terms of arms. But as per Guljar Singh V State of Maharashtra (supra), when the court is not in a position to conclude due to mechanical device and complicated weaponary, the court will examine potentiality of a weapon, to verify the capacity to eject the ammunition by its very design. Unless there is evidence to. this effect, the matter should not be allowed to rest on mere visual examination. In the instant case, the petitioner was arrested on 27-1-75 vide Ex. P. 2 by PW 1 Gopalram at the bus stand and found in his possession a bag, without licence or permit containing 9 rifles and one rifle in his Dub of 33 bore and 16 cartridges were also found. On each and every rifle a specific range was marked and their make was also mentioned as 'fanland' & 'pakistan'. There is sufficient evidence that from the mere look at it, one can conclude that it is an arm within the definition and there was no suggestion that the rifles look like arm only but in fact not an arm. The finding arrieved at by the courts below is not perverse and the case referred above will not be helpful to the petitioner. ;