IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55623 of 2006 KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 23.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Patna in Sessions Trial No.666 of 2005, arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No.50/93 whereby he has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 120(B) of the Penal Code and section 25(1B) and 26 of the Arms Act. It appears that pursuant to the self statement of S.I. Shambhu Nath Pathak, Danapur P.S. Case No.50/93 was instituted. According to the prosecution case some illegal cartridges dispatched from some other Railway Station was received at Bihta Railway station. The petitioner who was the Station Master kept the cartridges in the godown of parcel room. The aforesaid cartridges were booked from Faridcourt and Rajpura about which entry had been made in the Foreign Delivery Book. The cartridges were booked in the name of one Madan Mohan Sharma and Raj Nandan Sharma. The licensees were authorized to buy or keep 1000 cartridges at a time. However, the number of cartridges received were 4000 cartridges and as such terms of licence were violated. The petitioner submits that he is neither named in the 2 F.I.R. nor charge sheet was submitted against him. He submits that cognizance of offence was taken only against the persons named in the charge sheet. As his name sounded more or less similar to one of the co-accused Krishna Nandan Sharma, the petitioner has been mistaken for him and Court has held that there is sufficient materials to frame charges against him also. He further submits that section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 mandates that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 thereof, without previous sanction of the district magistrate. It appears that on 4.1.2007 this court called for a report from the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Patna in Sessions Trial No.666/05, as to whether sanction has been taken in the instant case under sections 25(1B) and 26 of the Arms Act in respect of the petitioner. The Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.II, Patna reported that no sanction order for prosecuting the petitioner under the Arms Act has been received. Counsel for the State submits that cartridges received were kept in the godown and one of the witnesses stated that the petitioner took the paper concerning the cartridges to his house. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the same witness on earlier occasion stated that the petitioner had kept all the papers at the Railway Station itself. Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 mandates that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence, under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district 3 KHAN magistrate. This court in the case of Rajendra Sahu Vs The State of Bihar, reported in 1975 BBCJ 584 held that the prosecution under section 25 of the Arms Act is illegal without proper sanction of the authorities concerned. It would appear from the report of the trial court that there is no sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecuting the petitioner under section 25(1B) and 26 of the Arms Act, and as such the prosecution of the petitioner under aforesaid section is without sanction of law and the same is accordingly quashed. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. (S.P.Singh,J)