IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33761 of 2008 1. MD.RIZWAN @ GUDDU 2. Md. Faiaz Alam … … Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioners: Shri Kanhaiya Pd.Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State: Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. ----------- 6. 18.11.2008 Heard Shri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The case was registered under different Sections of the Arms Act. Three persons were moving by an Ambassador Car and the police stopped it. The occupants were searched and from the possession of petitioner Md. Rizwan alias Guddu a pistol of 9 M.M. loaded with cartridges was recovered. So far petitioner Md. Faiz Alam is concerned, he was found in possession of one country made pistol and three cartridges. The third occupant of the vehicle was also possessing a country made pistol and some cartridges. The police Officer started making 2 minute search of the vehicle and during that course, he happened to tumble upon a box kept just behind the head light of the vehicle and that box was containing 19 packets, each packet containing 10 cartridges. Thus, total number of cartridges came to 190. The contention is that the petitioners are in custody since the very day the F.I.R. was lodged and that they do not have any criminal antecedent. The further contention was that as regards recovery of the cartridges from behind the flash light of the vehicle that could not be assigned to any of the petitioners inasmuch as it could be within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle who was sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. Out of the two petitioners, petitioner Md. Faiz Alam was driving the vehicle while Md. Rizwan alias Guddu was sitting behind in the vehicle with the owner. One could not ignore the recovery and the nature of the weapon made from petitioner Md. Rizwan alias Guddu’s possession- a pistol of 9 M.M., which was a 3 prohibited arm. If one could take a wholistic view of the entire recovery, then what could come out to ones mind is that it could be a systematic transportation of the arms, for any purpose, may be for sale to other traders or purchasers. It was a huge recovery. The recovery of the cartridges and the prohibited country made pistol could also not be ignored under the totality of circumstances, like, that the petitioners are in custody but I believe that the case has to go to the trial by a Magistrate. In the above view, I dismiss the petition. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)