Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner, Krishna Singh, praying therein for quashing the order dated 20.3.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, taking cognizance of the offence under sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of the Arms Act, as well the entire prosecution against the petitioner. However, from the certified copy of the impugned order it appears that the aforesaid order dated 20.3.1996 was recorded by Shri A. K. Verma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda, in Tr. No. 958 of 1996 (State of Bihar vs. Ravindra Sah & others). 2. The facto in short are that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged by one Havaldar Nagendra Prasad before the Officer-in-charge of Meharama Police Station alleging against this petitioner and another accused Ravindra Sah that they had put their country made pistol at them, but they could be rescued with intervention of others. 3. It will appear that after investigation the police had submitted charge-sheet against accused Ravindra Sah, but found allegation against this petitioner to be false, hence no charge-sheet was submitted against him. However, from the impugned order it appears that some witnesses had also named Krishna Singh, hence cognizance of offence against him also was taken under section 25 (1-B) a/26 of the Arms Act and non-bailable Warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him. 4. The only point that has been taken is that though there was sanction of prosecution by the competent authority under section 29 of the Arms Act against accused Ravindra Sah, but cognizance of offence was taken against this petitioner without any such sanction. 5. On behalf of the State a counter- affidavit has been filed sworn in by Mr. Ramyash Singh, the then Superintendent of Police, Godda in which in para 16 it has been mentioned that the Inspector of Police, Mehrama had supervised the case and since he did not find any evidence against this petitioner (Krishna Singh), as such no charge-sheet was submitted against him. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit it has also been admitted that no sanction to prosecute this petitioner under section 39 of the Arms Act had been obtained. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit it has also been admitted that no sanction to prosecute this petitioner under section 39 of the Arms Act had been obtained. Section 39 of the Arms Act runs as follows : "Previous sanction of the District Magistrate necessary in certain cases : No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate". 6. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that no prosecution can be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3, which applies to this case also, without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. Therefore, this mandate of law cannot be taken as a mere formality, being sine qua non before institution of any prosecution. This follows that if any prosecution is instituted without sanction of the District Magistrate, that is against law and in such circumstance cognizance of offence would stand barred and, if taken, had to be declared illegal. Learned counsel for the State agree with this stipulation under law. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.3.1996, so far it concerns petitioner, Krishna Singh, is quashed.