submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in convicting the
appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959, overlooking the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act
which lay down that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in
respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the
District Magistrate. In support of his submission, the learned advocate has
relied on the judgment given in the case of Kamalsingh Vs. State of Mah.,
reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 218.
It is undisputed that the prosecution is launched against the
appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 without there being sanction of the District Magistrate. The
learned A.P.P. has not been able to counter the submission made on behalf of
the appellant No.1 relying on the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act.
In the facts of the case, it has to be held that the conviction of the appellant
No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act is unsustainable and it has to be set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2000
Viransingh @ Simansingh S/o.
Attarsingh Tomar,
V
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MAY 11, 2016.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2616
