ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The Applicant was convicted u/s 25(a) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Section 39 of the Arms Act requires "No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence u/s 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate". In this case it was the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Executive) who had granted the requisite sanction for prosecution of the Applicant for being found in possession of an unlicensed fire arm and ammunition . 3. The argument of Mr. Burman, learned Counsel for the Applicant, is that the A.D.M. had no jurisdiction to grant that sanction and hence the very prosecution of the Applicant was illegal ab initio. There appears to be considerable force in this contention. 4. The relevant portions of Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under: 10(1) In every district outside the presidency towns the State Government shall appoint a Magistrate of the first class, who shall be called the District Magistrate. (2) The State Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional District Magistrate and such Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code (or under any other law for the time being in force) as the State Government may direct. There is a similar provision in the Arms Rules, 1962, framed under the Arms Act. Rule 2(f) defines a District Magistrate as-- 2 (f) "district magistrate" includes-- (i) ..................... (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. 5. From the above quoted provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Arms Rules it is abundantly clear that the Additional District Magistrate had to be specially empowered or directed by the State Government to grant the sanction contemplated by Section 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of the Applicant. 6. The contention of the learned State counsel was that the Additional District Magistrate concerned had been invested with requisite powers by the State Government for granting the sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act. 6. The contention of the learned State counsel was that the Additional District Magistrate concerned had been invested with requisite powers by the State Government for granting the sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act. Therefore when the case came up for hearing before Uniyal, J. on 30-3-1966, one months time was allowed to the State counsel to produce the notification investing the said Addl. Distt. Magistrate with such powers. But he was unable to do so. On 5-5-1966 Uniyal, J. granted another months time to produce a copy of the relevant notification. However, the State counsel again failed to produce it. This revision next came up before me on 4-7-1966, when the State counsel for the third time prayed for and was granted one months time to produce the relevant notification specially empowering the Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh, to grant sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act. The last extended period of one month has also elapsed but the State counsel has not been able to produce any such notification. When there was no such notification, the very foundation for the Applicant's prosecution was wanting. So he could not have been tried and convicted of an offence u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 7. Accordingly I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby discharged.