Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1968 DIGILAW 2 (ALL)

Karan Singh v. State of U. P.

1968-01-01

S.D.KHARE

body1968
ORDER S.D. Khare, J. - This criminal revision is directed against an order dated 28-7-1966 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aligar dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hathras convicting the present Applicant u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated was that on the night between the 30th and 31st of August, 1965 Hira Singh, Sub Inspector (PW 3), being on patrol duty in village Rajpur, heard some whispering sounds coming from behind the house of Niranjan Lal (PW). He immediately gathered some witnesses of the locality including Niranjan Lal (PW) and flashed his electric torch in the direction from which the whispering sounds had come. He noticed that five persons were sitting behind the house of Niranjan Lal. They were challenged and apprehended. On a search of the present Applicant a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered in the presence of witnesses (including Niranjan Lal). The articles were sealed in the presence of the witnesses. The two courts below have placed reliance on the testimony of Niranjan Lal as corroborated by Hira Singh (PW 3). The explanation given by the present Applicant that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity was not accepted. 3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant. There is no infirmity in the prosecution case and there could be no reason why the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which has been accepted by the two courts below, should not be relied on. 4. The only point which could be stressed by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant was, that the sanction for prosecution given by the Additional Distt. Magistrate could not be considered to be a proper sanction inasmuch as (1) the sanctioning authority was not the Additional District Magistrate (R) and (2) the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate is too brief to show that he had exercised his mind properly before giving the sanction. 5. There is no force in any of these contentions. Magistrate could not be considered to be a proper sanction inasmuch as (1) the sanctioning authority was not the Additional District Magistrate (R) and (2) the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate is too brief to show that he had exercised his mind properly before giving the sanction. 5. There is no force in any of these contentions. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that 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. The notification conferring powers of a District Magistrate on Addl. District Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh are couched in general terms (vide Notification No. 4390 (iii)/II-A-444/1964 dated 1-7-64) and the words "any other law for the time being in force" used in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also repeated in the notifications are comprehensive enough to include the Arms Act. In the case of State Vs. Bhimsha Chanbasappa Kore, AIR 1962 Bom 188 it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that an Additional District Magistrate appointed by the State Govt. can exercise all or any of the powers of the District Magistrate, under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he would automatically have the power of a District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law which will include the Arms Act. The sanction was granted by the Additional District Magistrate (R) on the charge-sheet itself where the brief facts of the case and the evidence to be produced were mentioned. The order of the Addl. District Magistrate (R) further shows that before granting the sanction he had seen all the papers. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Addl. District Magistrate (R) had not before granting the sanction, properly exercised his mind. Similar sanction granted by the District Magistrate was considered in the case of Dhanpat Vs. State, AIR 1960 All 40 and held to be a valid sanction. 6. The sentence awarded cannot be said to be excessive. There is no force in this revision application and it is dismissed.