Sahdev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Sahdev vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 10, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1093415

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1093415
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 10, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sahdev

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....raised by the petitioner in regard to framing of charge under section 25/27 of the arms act (for short “the act”) has been overruled. having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned order was perused. it is an admitted fact that in crime no.45/13 registered at police station betul bazar, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under section 307 of the ipc and section 25/27 of the act. from the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is also clear that mandatory provision of section 39 of the act has not been complied with by the prosecution and without obtaining any sanction from the district magistrate, charge-sheet was filed in respect of the offence under section 25 of the act. as per provision of section 39 of the act- “no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate” and as per section 3 of the act - “licence is required for acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunitions”. if violation of section 3 of the act is committed then it will be punishable under section 25(1b)(a) of the act, but to punish under the aforesaid section, prosecution shall not be instituted without obtaining sanction under section 39 of the act. so far as section 27 of the act is concerned, it has been made for punishment for using the arms etc.in contravention of section 5 of the act and for that purpose no sanction under section 39 of the act is required. it is an admitted fact that charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution without obtaining any sanction under section 39 of the act. charges under sections 341, 307 of the ipc and 25(1a) of the act were framed by the trial court. charge under s.25(1a) of the act is framed when contravention of section 7 of the act is committed and for that purpose no sanction is required under section 39 of the act. therefore, the revision sans merit and is, accordingly,.....

Full Judgment

Cr.R.No.1744/2013 10.10.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

With consent, the matter is finally heard.

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.8.2013 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T.No.131/13 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner in regard to framing of charge under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act (for short “the Act”) has been overruled.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned order was perused.

It is an admitted fact that in Crime No.45/13 registered at Police Station Betul Bazar, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Act.

From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is also clear that mandatory provision of Section 39 of the Act has not been complied with by the prosecution and without obtaining any sanction from the District Magistrate, charge-sheet was filed in respect of the offence under Section 25 of the Act.

As per provision of Section 39 of the Act- “no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate” and as per Section 3 of the Act - “Licence is required for acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunitions”.

If violation of Section 3 of the Act is committed then it will be punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Act, but to punish under the aforesaid section, prosecution shall not be instituted without obtaining sanction under Section 39 of the Act.

So far as Section 27 of the Act is concerned, it has been made for punishment for using the arms etc.in contravention of Section 5 of the Act and for that purpose no sanction under Section 39 of the Act is required.

It is an admitted fact that charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution without obtaining any sanction under Section 39 of the Act.

Charges under Sections 341, 307 of the IPC and 25(1A) of the Act were framed by the trial Court.

Charge under S.25(1A) of the Act is framed when contravention of Section 7 of the Act is committed and for that purpose no sanction is required under Section 39 of the Act.

Therefore, the revision sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.

(B.D.RATHI) JUDGE (and)

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Sahdev vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education