IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1013 of 2009 1. Md. Arif son of Late Badiuzzama. 2. Md. Tauhid Nasir son of Nasiruddin, Both resident of village-Namdraganj, Police Station-Akbarpur, District-Nawada. Versus State Of Bihar ----------- 2 12.07.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 6th June, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2008 by which the prayer of the petitioners to remand the case to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. It appears that Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 131 was instituted by the Officer-in-charge, Govindpur Police Station against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B) 26/35 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted cognizance was taken. During the trial the learned Magistrate found that the cartridges of .380 seized from the possession of the petitioners come within the purview of prohibited arms within the meaning of the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act which is punishable for term which 2 shall not be less than five years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine as such this offence is triable by the court of Session. As such the case was committed to the Court of Session and later on it has been transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C IV. It is submitted that there is no material on record to show that the aforesaid case is triable by the Session Court and in view of the ingredients of Section 25 (1) (b) 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, the offence is not triable by Sessions Court rather triable by Magistrate of the 1st Class. Therefore the petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which has been rejected. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that during the trial it has come to light that cartridges .380 have been found in possession of the petitioners which come within the purview of prohibited arms and ammunitions which is triable by the Court of Session. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that earlier Akabarpur P.S. 3 Case No. 131 of 2002 G.R Case No. 1528 of 2002 was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. During the trial it came to the notice of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the arms and ammunitions recovered from the possession of the petitioners come within the purview of prohibited arms as according to Rule 3 of the Arms Rules. Schedule Category 1(c) under the Rule 3 of the Arms Rules provides that the cartridges .380 and some other cartridges come under the purview of prohibited arms which come under the purview of Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act. It is triable by a Court of Session as per first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and on this ground the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the petition dated 15.5.2008 filed by the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This petition has no merit. This petition is thus dismissed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)