CRR No. 1126 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1126 of 2009 Date of Decision:05.12.2011 Hardial Singh ........Petitioner Versus Ranjit Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by the complainant challenging the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby charge has been framed against the respondent/accused under Sections 324, 382, 323, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and holding that no offence under Section 307 and 201 IPC is made out and sent the case back to the Court which had committed the case for further trial. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the use of fire arm, offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Further contention is that in the light of the fact that an un-licensed weapon was used in the incident for the commission of the offence the same would CRR No. 1126 of 2009 -2- constitue an offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act for which charge has not been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 04.04.2009. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/accused submits that as far as the use of fire arm which the accused was in possession, the same has been found to be not used in the commission of the offence and, therefore, offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act is not made out. His further contention is that offence under Section 307 IPC also is not made out as the injuries which have been received by the complainant- party are on non-vital part of the body and all are simple in nature. He accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. In the light of the fact that all injuries which have been received by the complainant-party are simple in nature and are on the non-vital parts of the body and none of the injuries has been declared dangerous to life by the doctor in his medical report, charge under Section 307 IPC has rightly not been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. As per the allegations and the challan presented in Court, it is apparent that the fire arm which was used in commission of the alleged offence is a non-licensed fire arm offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 is made out, it is a different issue that the licensed weapon of the accused has not been found to be used in the commission of the offence as submitted by the counsel for the accused/respondent for which the impugned order dated 04.04.2009 needs to be modified. Accordingly, charge under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act besides Section 25 of the Arms Act should also be framed against the accused/ respondent. This offence is triable by the Magistrate, the Magistrate, who CRR No. 1126 of 2009 -3- has been entrusted with the case shall proceed with the trial now in accordance with law. Revision Petition with this modification stands partly allowed. 05.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) harjeet JUDGE