JUDGMENT 1. -This petition is directed against the order dated 2.5.1998 whereby the learned CJ (SD) & ACJM, Rajgarh took cognizance against the petitioner under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Mr. Punia contends that the cognizance of the case is bad as the previous sanction of the District Magistrate was not obtained before instituting the case against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Beniwal and learned Public Prosecutor frankly concede that previous sanction of the District Magistrate was not obtained before taking cognizance. 4. Section 39 of the Arms Act provide that "No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without previous sanction of the District Magistrate". Thus, sanction of the District Magistrate is necessary for institution of the case in respect of offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 5. In the instant case, as the previous sanction of the District Magistrate was not obtained, the cognizance could not be taken. The petition succeeds. The order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is quashed. However, this order will not prevent the Court to take cognizance if the petitioner is prosecuted after obtaining sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act.Petition allowed. *******