Judgment :- 1. The prosecutor laid a charge-sheet against the revision petitioner under S.19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, referred to hereafter as the Act, for being in unlawful possession of a gun without the requisite licence. He pleaded guilty to the charge against him, under S.251-A (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code and was convicted by the 1st Class Magistrate at Nedumangad and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the appeal taken by him against the conviction to the Sessions Court at Trivandrum, he raised the contention, that the conviction was illegal, as the prosecution was not supported by the sanction prescribed by S.29 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge repelled this contention, holding, that under S.29 no sanction is necessary. 2. S.29 of the Act reads as follows: "Where an offence punishable under S.19, clause (f) has been committed within three months from the date on which this Act comes into force in any State, district or place to which S.32, Clause.2 of Act XXXI of 1860 applies at such date or where such an offence has been committed in any part of India not being such a State, district or place, no proceedings shall be instituted against any person in respect of such offence without the previous sanction of the Magistrate of the district or, in a presidency town, of the Commissioner of Police." 3. In interpreting the section, the learned Sessions Judge has held, that because the offence had been committed more than three months before the date on which the Act came into force in the State of Kerala, no sanction was necessary. Evidently, the learned judge applied the first part of S.29, but failed to note, that it applies only to a State, district or place to which S.32 (2) of Act XXXI of 1860 was applicable at the time this Act came into force, the reason being, that under that provision of the earner Act, there was power to order "disarmament" of such State, district or place, and therefore a restraint on prosecution for a limited period after the commencement of the Act, might be deemed to be reasonable; but in the present case, the provision in the Act of 1860 was not in force in the State of Kerala at the commencement of the Act) and the first part of S.29 has therefore no application. This interpretation of S.29 is supported by the decision Dhanpat v. State, AIR. 1960 Allahabad 40. It is the second part of S.29 that applies, and if so, the prosecution has to be supported by the requisite sanction. 4. But the learned government pleader stated, that such sanction has been obtained from the Additional District Magistrate, Trivandrum, on the 29th January 1959, before the charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has also made mention of a certain order obtained by the Sub-Inspector of Police who filed the charge-sheet, from the office of the Superintendent of Police. Though this description is inconclusive, it can and might refer to the sanction obtained by the Superintendent of Police; but it cannot be held, that by pleading guilty, the petitioner had also admitted, that the prosecution was supported by the necessary sanction. There is nothing on record to show, that a copy of the sanction was furnished to the revision petitioner under the provisions of S.251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, except a general statement, that copies of documents referred in S.173, Crl. P.C. have been furnished to him. In these circumstances, the proper course seems to me to be, to quash the conviction and order a recommencement of the proceedings from the inception. The procedure under S. 251-A, Crl. P.C. has to be gone through, after furnishing a copy of the sanction relied on, to the revision petitioner. With these observations, the conviction entered against the revision petitioner is hereby quashed, the sentence is set aside and the case sent back to the Magistrate concerned, to be disposed of in due course of law.