JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - This order will govern criminal revision Nos. 1690 of 1966; 1751 of 1966; 1752 of 1966; 1963 of 1966; 1964 of 1966 and 1965 of 1966. The applicants covered by these revisions stand convicted for offences under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The common plea, and the only plea, raised on behalf of the applicants in support of these revisions is that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of the applicants covered by these revisions. There is no controversy that in each of these cases sanction to prosecute was accorded by Mr. Girish Chandra, Additional District Magistrate. The contention raised by learned counsel was that Mr. Girish Chandra could not validly sanction prosecution because he was not a District Magistrate within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 39 of the Arms Act. Time was given to the learned counsel for the State to place before this Court material to indicate whether Mr. Girish Chandra was authorised to act as a District Magistrate and to accord sanction to prosecute the applicants for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act., The learned counsel for the State has today referred to a notification in Uttar Pradesh gazette (in Hindi) dated 23-10-1965, Part I at page 3138, whereby Mr. Girish Chandra was appointed, on return from leave, to be Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh. The notification also states that the said Mr. Girish Chandra, from the date of his taking over charge, was authorised, under Section 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to exercise all the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code as also under any other law for the time being in force. There is no controversy that Mr. Girish Chandra had taken over charge at Aligarh on or before the dates on which the sanctions in the six revisions covered by this order, had been accorded. 2. The contention raised by Mr. Devendra Swarup is that the aforesaid notification is of no avail to the prosecution be the said notification does not specially or specifically authorise Mr. Girish Chandra to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Indian Arms Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on two decisions of this Court viz. Devendra Swarup is that the aforesaid notification is of no avail to the prosecution be the said notification does not specially or specifically authorise Mr. Girish Chandra to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Indian Arms Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on two decisions of this Court viz. the decision of Gangeshwar Prasad, J. in Jawahar v. State, 1967 ALJ 689, and the decision of Gyanendra Kumar, J. in the case of Mani Shanker v. State, 1967 AWR (HC) 633. A perusal of these decisions discloses that in none of these cases, there was any notification authorising the Additional District Magistrate concerned to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate. In the case of each of the revisions, covered by this order, however, there is a notification referred to earlier, authorising Mr. Girish Chandra to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. I am unable to accept learned counsel's contention that the said notification is of no avail for the reason that it, does not specifically empower Mr. Girish Chandra to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Arms Act. The expression 'any other law for the time being in force' is to my mind, sufficient to cover offences under the Arms Act which was, and still remains, part of the law in force, and, in my opinion, it was not at all necessary to make a specific mention in the notification that Mr. Girish Chandra was empowered to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Arms Act. The cases relied upon are, therefore, of no assistance to the contention raised by learned counsel, In view of the notification referred to above, the sanction accorded by Mr. Girish Chandra, in each of the six cases giving rise to the six revisions, covered by this order, is valid and in accordance with law. 3. No other point has been raised. 4. The result is that all the six revisions covered by this order must fail. Criminal Revision No. 1690 of 1966; 1751 of 1966; 1752 of 1966; 1963 of 1966; 1964 of 1966 and 1965 of 1966 are accordingly dismissed. The applicants in each of these six revisions are on bail. They must surrender themselves to serve out the sentences:-awarded to them. Criminal Revision No. 1690 of 1966; 1751 of 1966; 1752 of 1966; 1963 of 1966; 1964 of 1966 and 1965 of 1966 are accordingly dismissed. The applicants in each of these six revisions are on bail. They must surrender themselves to serve out the sentences:-awarded to them. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The orders of this Court staying realisation of fine in Criminal revisions No. 1690 of 1966, 1751 of 1966 and 1752 of 1966 are vacated.