IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11393 of 2008 LOKESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 30.04.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Questioning the order of cognizance dated 14.2.2008 under Section 25(1-B), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act learned Counsel alleges false implication and additionally urges absence of any sanction by the District Magistrate to question the same. The weapon is alleged to have been recovered from the vehicle alleged to belong to the petitioner when he was found lying by its side in an allegedly injured condition. Seizure list witnesses have confirmed the recovery. The rest are matters for trial. In so far as the question of sanction is concerned, this Court is not satisfied that it would be sufficient to warrant interference at this stage as it is only a procedural matter which can be rectified at any stage of trial. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)