IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19341 of 2001 DEEPAK KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 18.8.2010. None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Sri D.Mehta, learned counsel for the State. As may appear from the averments made in the petition the case vide Harnaut P.S.case No.157 of 1999, G.R.No.1688 of 1999 was reported to be false but still cognizance was taken. This court believes that the order of cognizance was passed without the previous sanction which is required to be obtained under Section 39 of the Arms Act for initiating the prosecution for committing the offences under the Arms Act. I could not get any information from this record, as to whether any order sanctioning prosecution has been produced till date in the court below. I still set aside the order under the belief that no sanction to prosecute an accused, granted duly by the District Magistrate was produced before the court till date. I remit the case back to the court below to examine this question without hearing any person or party on the day it receives the copy of the present - 2 - order and then draw up an order. If the sanction order was available to the court and it had perused it at the time of passing the cognizance order, then the proceeding shall be continued, else it is too well known to be indicated to the court below that a point of law like the prosecution of a person without valid sanction could be sufficient to discharge an accused and in that view, the accused persons shall stand discharged from the case. The office of this Court shall ensure that the present order is duly communicated within 15 days from today to the court below for passing order as per direction contained therein. This petition stands disposed of. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )