Criminal Miscellaneous No.26542 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ 1.SHIVJI SAH son of late Mandal Sah 2.Binda Sah son of late Mangal Sah 3.Ram Kishore Sah son of Binda Sah 4.Pappu Sah son of Harish Chandra Sah 5.Guddu Sah son of Harish Chandra Sah 6.Ganaur Roy son of late Tapeshwar Roy All at present residents of village-Ratanpur, P.S.-Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi. …… ……Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. ……Opp. Party ----- For the petitioners: M/s M.S. Hoda S.N.Yadav, Advs. For the state: Mr.Braj Kishore Prasad, Addl.Public Prosecutor ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.5.1999 passed by B.P.Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in Majorganj P.S. Case No.60 of 1998/T.R. No.906 of 1999. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 25(1-B), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Badri Sah, first information report vide Majorganj P.S. Case No. 60 of 1998 was registered for the offences under sections 25(1-B), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. It was alleged in the fardbeyan that, while he was cultivating in his field along with his nephew, the accused persons including all the 2 petitioners arrived there. They started abusing the informant and subsequently they also assaulted them and in course of occurrence firing was also opened which hit on the right side of the chest of his nephew, Umesh Sah. Thereafter the accused persons started fleeing away but after chase one of the accused Gopal Sah could be apprehended and from his possession a country made pistol and cartridges were recovered. On the basis of the said allegation first information report was lodged. After investigation the police found accusation true against all the accused persons including the petitioners and charge sheet was submitted. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.5.1999 took cognizance of the offences under sections 25(1-B), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and transfer the case to the court of B.P.Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi for trial. 3. Mr. M.S. Hoda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance has firstly argued that for the same occurrence two first information reports were lodged by the police which is not permissible in the eye of law. It was argued that for the same occurrence another first information report vide Majorganj P.S. Case No.59 of 1998 was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 523 and 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal code and section 27 of the Arms Act. He has further argued that no arm was recovered from the conscious possession of petitioners, who are before this court. It was argued that arms and ammunitions were recovered form the possession of one Gopal Sah. On this 3 ground he has argued that since nothing was recovered from the possession of these petitioners, they cannot be prosecuted in the present case and the learned Magistrate has incorrectly taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. 4. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in instituting two first information reports. Another first information report was lodged for distinct offences for which there was no requirement for prosecution sanction. He submits that since from the possession of one of the accused persons, who had arrived along with all the accused persons, arms and ammunition were recovered, the police has rightly registered the present case and there is no bar in instituting another first information report for the offences under the Arms Act. He further submits that it is not in dispute that all the accused persons including the petitioners had arrived and committed the offence and from one of the accused persons arms and ammunition were recovered and, accordingly, first information report was rightly registered for the offence under the Arms Act including section 35 of the Arms Act. It was further argued that while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. 5. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record including copy of the charge sheet which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the petition. After investigation accusation against all the accused 4 persons including Gopal Sah and petitioners were found true, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. In view of the facts and circumstances, while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no error and, accordingly, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order of cognizance dated 17.5.1999. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present petition and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, order of stay dated 13.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 8. Since the order of cognizance was stayed by this court and the case remained pending for more than ten years, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same without any delay. Patna High Court The 12th May, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)