THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5395 of 2008 08.07.2010 Between: A.Seshagiri Rao ….Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5395 of 2008 ORDER: The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Nampally, arrested Pankaj Prakash (Accused No.1), Manish Kumar (Accused No.2) and Naresh Kumar (Accused No.3) near Nampally Criminal Courts Gate on 06.05.2008. When frisk, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in possession of -.32 rifles. Their statements were recorded. They allegedly stated that they purchased the weapons after obtaining the Arms licence from respective competent authorities, that they were engaged by accused No.4 as personal security guards. They further stated that on that day, they went to the Court with accused No.4 who was accused in a criminal case. All the accused stated that they were interviewed by accused No.5 (petitioner herein) on behalf of Rashtriya Sahara Security before they were appointed by accused No.4 as his personal guards. After recording the statements, the Sub Inspector registered F.I.R.No.84 of 2008 under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 109 IPC. The remand case diary was submitted to the Court of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally. Accused No.5 has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing First Information Report (FIR) insofar as he is concerned. Counsel for petitioner has taken this Court through a copy of the FIR and remand report. Except alleging that petitioner herein interviewed Accused Nos.1 to 3 before they were appointed by accused No.4, there is not even a whisper with regard to the alleged offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, which can be attributed to petitioner herein. Indeed the offence against accused Nos.1 to 3 is itself in contravention of condition 4(a) of the licence and that Accused Nos.1 to 3 failed to report to the concerned Station House Officer. The contravention of conditions of licence is essentially attracting offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act. There is no such allegation against the petitioner herein. On the face of it, even if the allegations made against accused No.5 are taken to be true, an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act would not be made out. In view of the matter, any criminal action against accused No.5 would be travesty of justice. In view of the same, this criminal petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, F.I.R.No.84 of 2008 insofar as accused No.5 is concerned, namely, A.Seshagiri Rao, S/o late Satyanarayana, Lieutenant General (Retired) is quashed. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.07.2010 pln