THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3810 OF 2009 DATED:23-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.202 of 2006 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-A11 along with others is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and Section 120 (b) r/w 34 IPC. 4. On a complaint given by the Sub Inspector of police, Task Force, Central Zone, a case was registered in Cr.No.919 of 2004 and the police completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against A1 to A11 for the above said offences. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-A11 would submit that except the alleged confessional statement of A9, there is no other incriminating material gathered against the petitioiner-A11 and hence, further proceedings against the petitioner-A11 are not warranted, especially when A10, who is similarly placed on par with A11, is discharged. 6. It is not disputed that A10 and A11 filed Crl.M.P.No.437 of 2008 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., praying for discharge and the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by order, dated 02-02-2009, dismissed the said petition and A10 and A11 filed Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2009 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order, dated 01-04-2009, partly allowed the same discharging A10 and dismissed the petition insofar as A11 is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by A11 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned Magistrate, in his order, stated that though the confessional statement of A9 is not admissible, if any other evidence is available, the accused is not liable to be discharged. The learned Magistrate further observed that the petitioner-A11 gave a country-made pistol to L.W.16- S.Devender Reddy and the same was taken away by his worker-Chitti Babu. The confessional statement of A9 is to the effect that he sold two country-made pistols to A10 and A11. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, has stated that insofar as A10 is concerned, except the confessional statement of A9 there is no other incriminating material, but however, insofar as A11 is concerned, the police have recovered the country-made pistol which was sold to A11 by A9. Police recorded the statement of S.Devender Reddy as L.W.16, who stated that A11 gave the pistol and six live rounds to L.W.16 for safe custody, representing that it was a licence weapon and L.W.16 kept the said pistol with live rounds in a box and his worker-Chitti Babu removed the said weapon with live rounds without the knowledge of L.W.16 and subsequently, Chittibabu was arrested by Manuguru police and the weapon was seized from him. It is further noted that later, A11 approached L.W.16 and shouted at him saying that it was a police weapon belonging to the Deputy Superintendent of police. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the statement of L.W.16 certainly incriminates A11 with the offence under Section 25 of the Act. The question as to whether or not the allegation made against A11 is true is a matter to be considered on evidence during the course of trial. In view of the recovery of the weapon and the licence and also in view of the statement of L.W.16, connecting the recovered weapon with A11, it cannot be said that A11 stands on par with A10. Simply because A10 was discharged, it cannot be contended that the proceedings against A11 are liable to be quashed when the material on record prima facie shows that they do not stand on the same footing. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the plea of the petitioner for discharge, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. There is absolutely no valid or justifiable ground to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings against the petitioner- A11 in C.C.No.202 of 2006 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd December, 2010 Tsy