- (1.) BOTH these criminal revision applications arise out of the same case and as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25th August 1999 passed by Sri V. N. Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi, in G.R No.212 of 1999 / T.R No.1024 of 1999, whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the offences under Sections 25 (1-b), 25 (1-a)/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and have been convicted for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the Trial Court below has sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for each of the aforesaid sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The appeal filed against the said Judgment by the petitioner Sukra Oraon was dismissed by the Judgment dated 21 st December 1999 in Cr. Appeal No. 135 of 1999 / T.R No.6 of 1999 passed by the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner Babu Lal Kumhar @ Babu Lal Karmali was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by Judgment dated 14th October 1999 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 1999 / T.R No.7 of 1999. The petitioners have been made accused in Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 10 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No.212 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 25 (1-b), 25(1-a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, as on 29.1.99, a raid was conducted in the house of petitioner Sukra Oraon from where four persons including these petitioners were apprehended while manufacturing the fire arms. Some partly manufactured fire arms, manufactured fire arms and tools for manufacturing fire arms were seized in presence of independent witnesses and seizure list was prepared and the police case was instituted against the petitioners. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. It appears that sanction for prosecution of the petitioners was also accorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Ranchi. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken by the Court below and ultimately the petitioners were put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant and the I.O. The materials seized at the house of the petitioner Sukra Oraon by the police were also produced in the Court below which were marked as material exhibits and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The appeals filed against the Judgment of the Trial Court were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point in this revision and has submitted that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioners was not in accordance with law. It has been submitted that sanction order was proved as Exhibit - 4 by the prosecution, which shows that the Sanction was accorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Ranchi. Learned counsel submitted that Section 39 of the Arms Act clearly prescribes that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that sanction was accorded by the Additional District Magistrate in this case, which was absolutely illegal and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners was vitiated in the eyes of law and the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has submitted that though Rule 2 (f) (ii) of the Arms Rules states that the District Magistrate includes, in relation to any district or part thereof, an Additional District Magistrate or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Government of the State-concerned, but so far as the present case is concerned, nothing was brought on record to show that the Additional District Magistrate was also specially empowered by the State Government for granting sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below and has pointed out that the Arms Rules, 1962 clearly prescribes that the District Magistrate includes the Additional District Magistrate. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that special empowerment by the State Government is required only if any other officer is to be vested with the power of a Sanctioning Authority. LEARNED counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgments passed by the Court below. The term 'District Magistrate' is defined under Rule 2 (f) (ii) of Arms Rules, 1962 and the relevant part of this rule reads as follows:- "2. Interpretation ­ In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,:- (f) "District Magistrate", includes ­ (ii)in relation to any district or part thereof, an Additional District Magistrate or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Government of the State concerned; Thus from a plan reading of this Rule, it is apparent that in relation to any district or part thereof, an Additional District Magistrate is also a District Magistrate within the meaning of the Arms Act, and he is fully empowered to grant sanction for the prosecution for the offence under the Arms Act. The requirement of special empowerment in this behalf by the State Government is required only if any other officer other than Additional District Magistrate is to be empowered for granting the sanction. Such special empowerment is not at all required for the Additional District Magistrate, as the District Magistrate includes the Additional District Magistrate. In that view of the matter, I find that no fault can be found in the present case, if the sanction was accorded by the Additional District Magistrate. As such, I do find any illegality in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, as the Judgments of the Courts below are based on the cogent evidence brought on record and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. ;