- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1439 CRL.P No. 100287 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100287 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ANURAG S/O. VIJAY ANGOLKAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO.3365, FIRST FLOOR, GONDHALI GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DANDELI RURAL POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO. 1281/2021 IN DANDELI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO. 03/2019 FILED ON 08.01.2019 AND THE CONGNIZANCE WAS TAKEN ON 24.08.2021 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 3 R/W 25(1B), (A), 29 (B) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HALIYAL HAS PRESENTED THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THERE ON AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.29 15:27:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1439 CRL.P No. 100287 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent–State. 2. The petitioner – accused No. 4, is sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Sections 25(1B)(a) and 29(b) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 was granted a license to possess SBBL Gun No. 13279, and after the expiry of the license, sold the gun to accused No. 2. Accused No. 2, without obtaining a license, allegedly used the gun for hunting animals. Additionally, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are alleged to have possessed bullets beyond the prescribed limit without a valid license. The only allegation against accused No. 4 is that he sold the gun, after the expiry of the license, to accused No. 1. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State. 5. Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, specifies that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of an offence under Section 3 of the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. 6. In the instant case, since Section 3 of the Act is invoked, the police were required to obtain prior sanction from the District Magistrate before taking cognizance, as mandated under Section 39 of the Act. Failure to comply with this statutory - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1439 CRL.P No. 100287 of 2025 requirement renders the taking of cognizance vitiated. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1281/2021 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.4 is hereby set aside. iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to take previous sanction of the District Magistrate under Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and thereafter proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24