JUDGMENT Roxburgh, J. - This is a Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas recommending that certain proceedings now being held against one Pritam Singh be quashed on the ground that farther prosecution of this accused for an offence under sec. 19-A and 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act is barred by the provisions of sec. 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was first sent up on the 1st November, 1945, with another man. On the 8th December, 1945, a charge sheet against the accused alone under sec. 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act, sec. 3 of Ordinance XXXIII of 1943 and sec. 411 of the Indian Penal Cede was received by the Court. On the 7th January, 1946, the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas granted sanction for the prosecution. The case had been transferred on the 12th December, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the file of Mr. B.L. Saha for disposal. A fresh charge sheet on 21st January, 1946, was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who transferred this to Mr. Saha for disposal. The accused was committed to Sessions when on the 28th May, the Public Prosecutor submitted a petition saying that the Police Magistrate instead of starting the proceedings ab initio had simply transferred the fresh challan to Mr. Saha who was in charge of the case before and that, therefore, in view of the ruling in Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor 49 C.W.N. (F.R.) 59 (1945) the entire proceedings were bad. He therefore asked permission to withdraw the prosecution. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge thereupon passed an order acquitting the accused u/s 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure noting that the authority might prosecute Pritam Singh with proper sanction starting proceedings ab initio if it is considered desirable and law permits. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge now makes this Reference putting forward the view that the order of acquittal being passed after an application for withdrawal of prosecution had been made, even though the ground for withdrawal was that the whole proceedings were bad, is nevertheless a good order for acquittal and therefore further proceedings could not be held. 3. We do not agree with the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has expressed for the reasons given by him. 3. We do not agree with the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has expressed for the reasons given by him. We are, however, of opinion that a valid order of acquittal has been passed in this case which is an effective bar to the present proceedings. In our opinion when the fresh challan was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 21st January, 1946, after sanction had been duly given on the 7th January, 1946, by the District. Magistrate, fresh proceedings had been initiated and thereafter all proceedings were good. At the time when the Public Prosecutor made his petition on the 28th May, he was acting under a misapprehension. The result is that the order of acquittal was passed on an application for transfer (?) in proceedings which were with jurisdiction, the order of acquittal is, therefore, of full effect and is a bar to the present proceedings. 4. We may point out that the distinction between the facts in the present case and those in Basdeo Agarwalla's case 49 C.W.N. (F.R.) 59 (1945) is that in the latter case no fresh challan was in fact submitted; when sanction was received the case proceeded forthwith. Proceedings are instituted in Court when a police report of the facts with police charge sheet is received by the Court. If at the time when such a report is received there is already in existence a valid sanction, the proceedings are then instituted. That is what happened in this case and proceedings were, therefore, good as from the 21st January, 1946. 5. We had considered whether we might not interfere with the order of acquittal passed in this case having regard to the fact that it was passed under a complete misapprehension of the law, but these proceedings have already dragged long enough and we agree with the reasons given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his Reference that they should not be allowed to continue further. 6. The result is that the Reference is accepted; the present proceedings are quashed and the accused is directed to be released from his bail. The Crown has not appeared in the proceedings. Chakravartti, J. I agree.