IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.882 of 2010 1. Md. Alauddin @ Bamfaria, S/o Late Masiruddin of Village- Dakhin Maheshwari, Jogbani, P.S.-Jogbani, District- Araria. 2. Ahmad Hussain, S/o Late Md. Chedi of Village-Bairgachi Basti, P.S.-Araria, District- Araria …… Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR …. Opposite Party ----------- 2 28-06-2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the judgment and order of dismissal rendered by the learned appellate court (Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. -6, Araria) in Criminal Appeal NO. 94/2009(Tr. No. 1/2009) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was dismissed. Petitioners were charged under diverse section of the Arms Act. As per prosecution case, the informant on getting secret information visited the village in question along with police party when it was seen that few culprits were fleeing away from the place of occurrence. On chase, petitioners herein were caught and search was carried out and in course whereof one country made loaded pistol kept inside the Lungi was found and recovered from the possession of the petitioner no. 1. From the possession of Petitioner No. 2, one live cartridge is said to have been recovered. At the trial, witnesses were examined and on consideration of the materials on record petitioners herein were held guilty for having committed offence(s) punishable under sections 25(1-b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and accordingly 2 sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment one year, six months and six months respectively. They were also imposed fine with certain defaults clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court, both the petitioners preferred the aforesaid appeal, which was dismissed as noted above. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the aforesaid orders, states that there was no sanction for prosecution accorded in the present case and as such the impugned judgment and order are bad in law. Learned trial court in para-19 of the judgment has found that the sanction for prosecution granted by the appropriate authority is on record as Ext. 6. The appellate court has also recorded the aforesaid finding (at internal page-5 of the judgment). This court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, it is dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)