IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41421 of 2007 SRIKANT RAY, S/o Sri Madan Mohan Ray, R/o village Shivsagar, P.S. Jurawanpur, District – Vaishali ………. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …. Opp. Party ----------- 3 18.12.2008 Heard Mr. A.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners seek the quashing of order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in connection with Jurawanpur P.S. Case No. 29 of 2007, wherein he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under sections 25(I – b) (a) , 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. It appears that A.S.I. Jurawanpur P.S. on receipt of the confidential information that some antisocial elements armed with fire arms had arrived from Bhakthiyarpur in the house of the petitioner Ex-Mukhia, organized a raiding party and raided the house of the petitioner and on reading the house of the petitioner he saw some persons lazing on chairs and chowki who on seeing the police party attempted to flee but were apprehended and from the possession of one of them, namely, Nawal Rai a loaded countrymade pistol with cartridge were recovered from his waist and from the possession of different other persons live cartridges were recovered and from the dalan of the petitioner two regular riffles and cartridges were recovered. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he being an Ex-Mukhia has been falsely implicated - 2 - at the instance of his enemies. It was next contended that the arms recovered from the dalan were licensed and Annexure 3 series has been appended to the application in support of the submissions. It was next sought to be submitted that from the recital in the F.I.R. and the materials available in he case diary none of the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken appears to have been made out or is made out. Admittedly persons from Bakhtiarpur armed with arms and ammunitions were found relaxing in the premises of the petitioner who seeing the police wanted to flee but were apprehended and arms and ammunitions were recovered from their possession. The petitioner may be a licensee and may be in possession of license for rifle recovered but this matter has to be taken into consideration only at the time of evidence and trial . So far as the present situation is concerned the petitioner had no business to keep the fire arms and ammunitions in the open in the dalan. The holding of license does not give unfettered right to the license- holder to store his arms and ammunitions in any open space. Be that as it may and even if the house is in joint possession of several people I am not impressed with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons stated above. I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)