IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8866 of 2010 JITENDRA SWAMI, son of Sri Uma Shankar Singh, resident of village- Sawan Bigrah, Police Station- Daraunda, District- Siwan. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Vijay Kumar, the then Officer Incharge of Maharajganj Police Station, District- Siwan, presently posted as .. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 2. 31.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Sections 25, 26, 35 of the Arms Act is aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate dated 11.11.2009 entrusting the case to the court of Sessions after finding that the case in terms of Schedule 1 of the Arms Act was triable by the court of Sessions. The petitioner has also assailed the consequential revisional order affirming the said order passed by learned magistrate. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner with his usual vehemence would try to convince this court that at the stage when the learned 2 magistrate has passed the order dated 11.11.2009 he ought to have looked into the scope of Section 45 of the Arms Act in terms of which the petitioner-accused was entitled to take a defence of arms in question being subject matter of trial being protected by a licence and hence not triable by court of sessions. In the opinion of this Court, counsel for the petitioner has only put a straightforward view without considering that this part of his defence of the petitioner can only be looked into if the trial is conducted by a competent court. There is no denial to the fact that in the seizure list apart from other weapons even incorporates recovery of a carbine. Whether such carbine was backed by a proper licence and thus protected under Section 45 of Arms Act would be a matter of trial but on that score it cannot be said that learned magistrate had acceded his jurisdiction in handing over the case in respect of such offence under Arms Act 3 which was exclusively triable by the court of sessions. That being so, this court would not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the court below and accordingly, this application is dismissed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)