IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1917 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- CHANDY BEHANAN, VALIYANJALIKKAL, VENNIKULAM P.O, PURAMATTOM, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MUHAMMED HANEEF RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION-CRIME NO.342/2004) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1917 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 3 r/w. Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner was allegedly travelling by flight and in his baggage on X-ray examination it was found that two bullets were there. The bullets were seized. F.I.R. was registered. Investigation was conducted. Cognizance has already been taken. The petitioner has already appeared before the learned Magistrate and has been enlarged on bail, it is submitted. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution against him. The counsel prays that such powers may be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the articles seized are only toy pellets and not arms or fire arms falling within the sweep of the Arms Crl.M.C.No. 1917 of 2008 2 Act. A copy of the final report has been placed before court. The report clearly shows that CW5, who has been cited, is the Scientific Assistant in the Forensic Science Laboratory and he has issued a certificate after examining the pellets/bullets in question. There is no contention before me that the said report would show that the articles seized do not fall within the sweep of the provisions of the Arms Act. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is totally misconceived. This Crl.M.C. does not therefore deserve deserve admission at all. 3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. But I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to urge a contention at the stage of framing charge or at the later stage of adjudication of guilt that the contraband articles seized do not fall within the sweep of the Arms Act. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 1917 of 2008 3