IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 681/2010 Parvinder …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. …….Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 682/2010 Sandeep @ Chiku …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. …….Respondents September 21, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Since both these petitions arise out of the same recovery memo and involve common facts and evidence and, hence they are being decided by this common order. Heard Mr. Sachin Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. None appeared for the respondent no. 2 despite being served . By means of these petitions, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the chargesheets dated 14.2.2010 filed in case crime no. 216/09 and 217/09 respectively under Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as the cognizance order dated 15.5.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 280/2010 and 279/2010. Facts, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners alleging that on 13.8.2009, the police party was on patrolling duty. At about 12.45 pm, when the police party reached at the gate of Birla Tyre Factory, Laksar they saw that some persons were quarelling and seeing the police party, they fled from the spot. Sher Singh and Anil who were present on the spot told the police about the 2 damaged Maruti Zen Car No. UP07E7942 and further said that the same was being driven by petitioner Sandeep while another petitioner Parvinder was sitting on the back seat and both of them were having country made pistols in their hands and when they saw the police party, both of them escaped from the spot living behind the aforesaid car and their countrymade pistols in the said car. Thereafter police recovered the said country made pistols. On the basis of this FIR, a case was lodged against the petitioners and after the investigation, the I.O. filed the impugned chargesheets against the petitioners under Section 25 of the Arms Act, on the basis of which learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and summoned them vide order dated 15.5.2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that no such alleged incident ever took place and no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in this case. I find force in the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners have been chargesheeted and summoned to face the trial under Section 25 Arms Act. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, relevant provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act are reproduced below: “25. Punishment for certain offences—(1) Whoever— (a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or (b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of section 6; or 3 (c) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” On a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the recovery of country made pistols have been made from the aforesaid Maruti car and the petitioners were not present on the spot when the police reached there. Petitioners were not arrested on the spot. Furthermore, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioners are not the owner of the aforesaid Maruti car from where the alleged recovery has been made. The names of the petitioners were told to the police by Sher Singh and Anil, who have stated in their respective affidavits that they had not seen the alleged incident and the police have made them false witnesses in this case and copies of their affidavits have also been filed on record. Therefore, the basic ingredients of Section 25 of the Arms Act are missing in the instant case inasmuch as the petitioners were not arrested on the spot and admittedly the alleged country made pistols have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The said recovery was made from the aforesaid Maruti car which does not belong to the petitioners and even the witnesses who told the police about the presence of the petitioners have denied that they had not seen any such incident. It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing, then permitting such a trial to continue and to compel the petitioners to face the criminal trial under Section 25 Arms Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. For the reasons recorded above, the present C482 petitions are allowed. Chargesheets dated 14.2.2010 filed in case crime no. 216/09 and 217/09 respectively under Section 4 25 of the Arms Act as well as the cognizance order dated 15.5.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 280/2010 and 279/2010 and the entire proceedings thereof are hereby quashed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.9.2010 PRABODH