The State vs Gurdeo Singh Harnam Singh

Chopra, J.—Conviction of Gurdev Singh Respondent u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act was set aside in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, simply on the ground that the requisite sanction u/s 29 of the Act had not been duly tendered and proved. This is State appeal u/s 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the appellate judgment of acquittal pass ed by the Sessions Judge.

Original sanction to prosecute Gurdev'' Singh Respondent under the Arms Act our porting to be signed by the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, was presented along with the charge-sheet. No objection to its validity or as regard''s the necessity of its formal proof was raised at any stage 5efore the trial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge held the view that the sanction should have been duly tendered and exhibited and that some evidence must have been led to show that it bore the signature of the District Magistrate.

The learned Judge has relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in '' Dharam Sarup Vs. The State, But I do not find anything in that judgment in support of the view taken by him. One of the objections raised in that case WAS that the sanction to prosecute the accused u/s 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, had not been validly obtained inasmuch as the record did not show that the sanctioning authority did have before it the relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution was desired.

The objection was over-ruled on the ground that to sanction prosecution rested solely with. the sanctioning authority and its exercise could not be questioned in a Court of law. Dealing with the objection Aggarwal J. observed:

The Courts are concerned only with one mat-'' ter - to find whether sanction for the particular prosecution was in fact accorded by the oroper authority. If the record shows that the sanction was in fact accorded and the sanction was in respect of the particular transaction which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused, the requirements of the law are fully satisfied.

The above observation rather goes to show that the sanction need only be placed on the record and no formal proof of it is required.

A decision of the Calcutta High Court in '' Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Moazzem Hossain, has also been relied upon by Shri Narotam Singh learned Counsel for the Respondent, in support of the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The judgment in his case appears to have been based on its peculiar facts and cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that it is always necessary for the prosecution to lead formal proof of the sanction.

The charge-sheet simply contained the one word order "Sanctioned" purporting to have been signed by the District Magistrate. It was more of a case where validity of the sanction was being questioned, but the learned Judge, without giving any reasons and taking into consideration the provisions of the Evidence Act in this connection, went on to observe that the sanction had not been legally proved.

As already observed the original sanction under the signature of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda, was produced in the Court of the trial Magistrate along with the charge-sheet. Section 57(7), Evidence Act, lays down that the Court shall take judicial notice of "the accession to office names, titles, functions and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any part of British India, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in any official Gazette!''.

It is not disputed that the appointment of Sardar Prem Kumar as District Magistrate, Bhatinda, Was duly notified in the Pepsu Official Gazette and it cannot also be doubted that a District Magistrate holds a public office. The Court was, therefore bound to take judicial notice of the District Magistrate''s posting name and signature.

Section 56 of the Act further provides that a fact of. which the Court will take judicial notice, need not be proved. It is thus obvious that under the law the prosecution in the present case was not required to prove the District Magistrate''s signature on the sanction.

Section 74 describes the "public documents" and its Sub-section (I) (iii) includes within their ambit documents forming the acts or records of the acts of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive.

The District Magistrate is surely such an officer, and the document containing the sanction given by him u/s 29 of the Arms Act falls within the definition of a "public document".

Section 77 enjoins that certified copies, available u/s 76 of the Act, may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents cr '' parts of the public documents of which they purpose, to be copies. The original document must "Stand in a better position than its copy; where the - contents of a document can be proved by production of its certified copy, they can certainly be proved by production of the original. u/s 79, Evidence Act, the Court shall presume the genuine-ness Of every document which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by an officer authorised in this behalf. In - ''Md. Oziullah v. Beni Madhab Chow-dhary AIR 1922 Cal 298 (C), a letter issued from the office of the Chief Secretary to the Government and signed by the Chief Secretary, directing the prosecution of a person was held to be sufficient proof of the order of prosecution by the local Government.

In - State Vs. Sagar Mal and Others, sanction to prosecute the accused appeared on the charge-sheet submitted by the police. The objection that the sanction had not been duly proved was rejected for the reason that the original sanction, which was available to the Court and formed a public document, did not require any'' further or formal proof.

To the same effect is another Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in - '' Sagar Mal and Others Vs. The State, eliancen support of the objection that the sanction under which a prosecution was started was not duly proved, was placed on Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Moazzem Hossain, (cited above). Malik C.J. dealing with the objection and on a reference to the Calcutta decision observed:

No doubt, the learned Judges appear to have said that even where the original order itself is produced,'' it is necessary to prove the signature of the Presiding Officer. A sanction is a public document and if a certified copy of such a document is admissible without further evidence, we see no reason why the original should not be presumed to be genuine when the original itself is produced.

A similar view was taken by this Court in a case decided by my learned, brother, Hon''ble the Chief Justice sitting in Single Bench. In this case - ''State v. ''Jangir Singh AIR 1954 Pepsu 84 (F), it was held that a sanction for prosecution accord- ed by a District Magistrate is a public document and it can therefore be proved, as provided for in Section 77, Evidence Act, by production of a certified copy or the original.

For the reasons already stated I am in respectful agreement with this view. I would, there fore, hold that no formal proof of the sanction need have been produced by the prosecution in this case.

As regards the objection that the sanction was not duly tendered and exhibited, all that may possibly be said is that it would have been better if it had been so done, but the mere lack of it does not vitiate the trial or render the conviction illegal. If anything, it is merely an irregularity which did not, nor was likely to, cause any prejudice to the accused.

The sanction must have been within the knowledge of the accused and his counsel, and, there-lore, no objection on this score was taken at any stage of the trial. Moreover; it is for the Court to satisfy itself that there is a legal and proper sanction before taking cognizance of the case. When the Court is so satisfied, the sanction need not be tendered as an exhibit and proved during the trial.

In the result, the appeal is accepted, the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge set aside and the case remitted to the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. for re-hearing and decision of the appeal in accordance with law. Gurdev Singh is directed- to furnish personal recognizance in the amount of Rs, 500/- for appearance in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. He has further been directed to appear in the said Court on 11-7-1955.

Kesho Ram Passey, C.J.

I agree.