K.B. Srivastava, J.
1. The only point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 25(D)(a) Arms Act, is not in accordance with law. and therefore, the conviction is bad.
2. It appears that the Sub-Inspector of police submitted a report Ext. Ka-4 praying for the sanction of the District Magistrate. That report does not mention either the date on or the place at which the petitioner was arrested. The District Magistrate, in his order of sanction, has mentioned that he perused the papers but there is no indication what papers were placed before him beyond the report Ex. Ka.-4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Gunwant Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 1972CriLJ1187 that under the Arms Act all that is required for sanction is that the person to be prosecuted was found to be in possession of the fire-arm, the date or dates on which he was so found in possession and that the possession of the fire-arm was without a valid licence. The sanction order, even when read with Ext. Ka-4, does not indicate either the date or the place and these portions of the requirements of law, were not established by the prosecution. In an earlier decision, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh : AIR1954SC637 . it had been held by the Supreme Court that if all the facts do not appear in the sanction order, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence if the material facts constituting the offence Were placed before the sanctioning authority. Two witnesses, were examined by the prosecution and they are P. W. 6 and P. W. 7. but they have also not stated that any other paper, besides Ext. Ka-4, was placed before the District Magistrate, nor is there any other evidence that the District Magistrate knew the facts. In the circumstances, therefore, the revision is allowed and the conviction of and the sentence awarded to the petitioner are set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender to the same. His bail bonds are discharged.