IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46157 of 2007 MD.PUNAM @ YUNUSH S/O LATE HISAMUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANGPURA, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTT. PURNEA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 8.3.2010. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 16.12.2005 whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-A), (1-B), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act in connection with Dhamdaha (Mirganj) P.S. Case No.136 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides the allegation in respect of possessing illegal arms, the police had also seized his vehicle. Learned counsel submits that subsequently, the vehicle was released in his favour by the concerned court and as such according to him, no case under Section 414 I.P.C. is applicable against this petitioner. Learned - 2 - N.H./ counsel further submits that even in the seizure list, his signature was not obtained. Learned counsel for the State Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyaya vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing of the order and submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of cognizance and as such petition is liable to be rejected. I have perused the impugned order as well as F.I.R. The F.I.R. also categorically deals regarding commission of cognizable offences and the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has examined everything and thereafter impugned order was passed. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order nor there is any merit in the petition and as such petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)