IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF MARCH. 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12013/20 10 B LTW F 1. Kashimsab Shabuddin Aaheri Age: 29 years, 0cc: Business R/o. Bijapur 2. Lalsab Papasab Soudagar Age: 32 years. 0cc: Nil R/o. Bijapur PETITIONERS (By Sri. Sachin B. Patil, Adv.) AND: The State of Karnataka By PSI, Shahapur Police Station Through Addi. SSP, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench. Dharwad. RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Vinavak S. Kulkarni, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.25(1A.A) OF ARMA ACT IN SOFAR AS RELATES TO THE PETITIONER CONCERNED IN SHAHAPUR P.S. CR.NO.132 1 2010 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC,25, 29, 25(1A,A) OF ARMS ACT, 1959. PENDING ON THE FILE OF III JMFC, COURT, BELGAUM. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, TIlE COUR’I MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is disposed of finally after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings pending on the file of III JMFC Court, Belgaum, as according to the petitioners, the cognizance taken by the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under Section 25(1A,A) of Arms Act in Shahapur P.S. Crime No.132/2010 is not sustainable, because the weapon that was said to have been sold by the petitioners does not fall within the definition of firearms’. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners elaborating the above contention raised in the petition referred to the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Narain Singh Parihar Vs. State of U.P reported in AIR 1981 Allahcthad 246 to contend that, though a pistol or a revolver is a firearm, a semiautomatic pistol will not fall within definition of prohibited arms” in Section 2(i) of the Arms Act 1959. The learned Counsel also referred to the definitions of ammunition’ at Section 2(b), ‘arms’ at Section 2(c) and ‘firearms’ at Section 2(e), contained in the Arms Act. 4. On the other hand, submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State is that, the contentions now raised can be put forward before the trial Court and moreover, the charge sheet is yet to be filed and as such interference at this stage is not called for. 5. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the definitions at Sections 2(b). 2(c) and 2(e) of the Arms Act, in my opinion, the petitioners can urge 4 the contention now raised,before the trial Court and the trial Court to examine as to whether a Country Pistol false within the definition of ‘firearms’ or not, having regard to the definitions at Sections 2(b). 2(c) and 2(e) of the Arms Act. 6. For the above reasons, quashing of the proceedings at this stage does not arise having regard to the complaint allegations made and therefore, the petition is rejected. However, this shall not come in the way of the petitioner approaching the trial Court for discharge, based on the contentions now raised before this Court. Sd/ JUDGE