IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15911 of 2008 1. SUNIL RAI @ SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, SON OF SIPAHI RAI, 2. GORAKH RAI, SON OF SITA RAM RAI 3. SURENDRA RAI, SON OF SITA RAM RAI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHALUHI, P.S. MARHOURAH, DISTRICT SARAN. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BALISTER RAI, SON OF RAJDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHALUHI, P.S. MARHAURAH, DISTRICT SARAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- 2. 25.6.2010. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 25.1.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Saran, Chapra in Cr. Revision No.152 of 2007. By the said order, the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 12.4.2007 passed by Shri Satrughan Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Tr. No.1497 of 2006/Tr. No.1101 of 2007 arising out of Marhaurah P.S. Case No.230 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution for adding charge under Section 27 of the Arms 2 Act. I have perused the impugned order. By order dated 12.4.2007, the learned Magistrate, after examining the evidences i.e. evidence of about five witnesses, who categorically stated that in the occurrence, the informant Balister Rai had received fire arm injury has amended the charge with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate has also noticed that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has found one piece of fired cartridge from the place of occurrence. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate by amending charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act has committed no error. Moreover, the said order was challenged by the petitioners, while invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and same was rejected. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioners were not entitled to file the present petition in the garb under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which amounts to a second revision and same is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the facts and circumstances, 3 N.H./ particularly in view of reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any material to interfere with both the impugned orders and, accordingly, this petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)