Judgment : 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.601 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned. 2. The petitioner herein is the first accused and the respondent herein is the complainant in the said Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3. The facts in brief are that A.2 in the said Calendar Case worked under A.1 in the year 1991 for supplying single lottery tickets on commission basis. In the year 1998 A.2 accompanied A.1 to Dindigal where double murder had occurred. They went and witnessed the scene of offence. While returning from the scene of offence in that case, A.1 handed over one country made revolver and four live cadridges to A.2 but he did not disclose as to how he secured them. Subsequently the complainant seized the said country made revolver and bullets from the house of A.2 at G-12 Praja Apartments, Amberpet, Hyderabad on 07.01.2009. Accordingly a report was prepared and on that basis the case was registered in Cr.No.16 of 2009 under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. It is specifically alleged that on the confession of A.2, A.1 was arrested with reference to the firearm and the ammunition. 4. It is the contention of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy learned senior counsel appearing for A.1 that the so called confession made by A.2 against A.1 is not admissible in evidence by virtue of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and further, without obtaining necessary sanction as required under Section 26 of the Indian Arms Act, the question of prosecuting A.1 with reference to the alleged offence does not arise at all and the leaned Magistrate without applying his mind had taken the case on file and hence requested the court to allow this petition and quash the proceedings pending before the Court below so far as A.1 is concerned. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that there is material on record to prosecute A.1 in the case and prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings impugned in this petition? 7. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that there is material on record to prosecute A.1 in the case and prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings impugned in this petition? 7. The only material available against A.1 in the case is the alleged confession said to have been made by A.2 about the firearm and the ammunition said to have been handed over by A.1 to A.2 in the year 1998. Under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act such confession said to have been made by A.2 to the police is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, the confession said to be made by A.2 to the police is to be excluded from the purview of the case. Leaving that apart, absolutely there is no material to connect A.1 with the alleged charge. 8. Further, by virtue of Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of an offence punishable under Section 3 of the same Act without the previous sanction of the concerned District Magistrate. 9. Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act reads as under: “Licence for acquisition and possession of fire-arms and ammunition- (1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under………” 10. Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Act, reads as follows:“Whoever acquires, has in possession or carries any place specified by notification under Section 4 any arms of such class or description as had been specified in that notification in contravention of that section……… Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. Section 3 and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Act are to be read together because both the provisions deal with the question of acquisition and possession or carriage of any fire arms or ammunitions subject to having valid licence issued by a competent authority. Consequently, the provisions of Section 39 of the Act are also to be applied with reference to Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Act. 12. Consequently, the provisions of Section 39 of the Act are also to be applied with reference to Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Act. 12. So when there is no sanction obtained for prosecuting A.1, ultimately there are no grounds to prosecute A-1 in the calendar case and accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 13. The learned Magistrate failed to apply his mind in taking the case on file. Learned Judicial Magistrates of First Class have to carry out their duties as judicial officers consciously and legitimately as any violation of those concepts will lead to unnecessary prosecution of innocent persons or persons who cannot be prosecuted on baseless charges in consequence of which they have to suffer to a great deal and waste their valuable time which is likely to run for years and incur lot of expenditure. The officers have to pay attention to the relevant laws enjoined regarding the basis to take the Criminal cases on file or to take cognizance of the criminal cases. The Courts are not mere post offices where postal employees carry out their duties rather mechanically. The Courts are regarded as temples of Justice on the premise that in the Courts justice is rendered to the litigant public who approach the Courts by redressing their legitimate grievances. The concept becomes redundant when the Judicial Officers by their omissions or commissions fail to fulfil the legitimate expectations of the litigant public who approach the Courts of properly administering justice to them. 14. It is needless to reiterate the purpose for which the Courts are established. The Courts are public offices meant for the public and the Judicial Officers are the tools to achieve the purpose of the Courts for which the Courts are established. The Public policy mandates that every public servant remains in his post, as long as he carries out his duties as such legitimately. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.601 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed, insofar as A-1 in the case is concerned.