IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.9171 OF 2008 INDRADEO RAI, SON OF BHOLA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, POLICE STATION RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********** 2 11/03/2010 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. appears on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 14.12.2007 by which the Court has set aside the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur in Raghopur Police Station Case No. 74 of 2005 corresponding to Trial No. 1578 of 2006. The trial is for a case under Section 27 of the Arms Act. On 15.12.2006, the evidence of the prosecution was closed and on 21.01.2007 the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 12.01.2007, the petitioner was allowed to enter his defence and four witnesses were examined. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to examine 132 witnesses. This is a case under the provisions of the Arms Act and once the defence is permitted to enter examination of the witnesses to support his case, it cannot be envisages 2 that in a case under the provisions of the Arms Act, 132 witnesses would be required to prove that the petitioner is not guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the result, I do not see any illegality in the order of the Revisional Court when it says that the Magistrate should permit only those defence witnesses who would be relevant for a just decision in the case. Obviously, the application on behalf of the petitioner to examine 132 witnesses appears to have been filed for delaying the trial. The Trial Court should proceed with the trial and if the defence wants to examine any other witnesses apart from the four that have already been examined, he has to give the relevance of each and every witnesses and as to whether they were present at the place of occurrence at the time of recovery. This order is being passed subject to the fact that the case has not been concluded. This application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)