IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.27764 of 2008 SHANKER DUTTA son of Anil Dutta @ Kala Dutta, resident of Kharka (Batwan Bazar), P.S.-Quasim Bazar, District- Munger …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Md. Kajimuddin son of Md. Alimuddin, resident of village- Barhara, P.S.- Halsi, District- Munger …Opposite Parties ----------- 4/ 19.05.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.7, Munger, in connection with Cr. Revision No.35 of 2001, by which it has affirmed the order dated 03.01.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in G.R. No.1993 of 1994 arising out of Kotwali (Quasim Bazar) P.S. Case No. 651 of 1994. It has been submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 22.12.1994, whereas, the cognizance was taken on 13.07.1998 under sections 341, 342, 323, 337 Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel fort the petitioner submits that cognizance was barred under section 468 Cr. P.C. where the offence under the Indian Penal Code were concerned and since no sanction had been sought under section 27 of the Arms Act, cognizance was also barred under the Arms Act and, therefore, proceeding against the petitioner was bad. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, however, refused to recall the order of cognizance for this ground. Whereafter the petitioner moved the revisional Court which 2 was also dismissed by the revisional authority. This Court by order dated 17.09.2008 issued notice to the opposite party no.2, but it appears that despite service of notice he had chosen not to appear before this Court. The case of the informant was that on the fateful day the informant was waylaid by one named accused and some unknown persons who were variously armed. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. Subsequently, his name transpired during investigation but no overt act was alleged against him and admittedly, even though the son of accused Kala Babu is said to have been holding a gun the same was not used for firing, but merely as a weapon for assault from the wooden portion. In my opinion, section 27 of the Arms Act at best would be made out against the co-accused but not against the petitioner since there is no allegation that he was holding fire arms. In the result, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding in Kotwali (Quasim Bazar) P.S. Case No.651 of 1994 is hereby quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner only. The application stands allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)