IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1566 of 2009 1. Binod Paswan, son of Late Muni Paswan. 2. Upendra Paswan, son of Late Muni Paswan (Both residents of village-Kurre Tola Tarhpar, P.S.-Ghosi, District- Jehanabad) ………….Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar …..Opposite Party ----------- 3. 11.11.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the part of the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Jehanabad in Cr. Appeal No.32/2009/01/2009 by which the judgment and order dated 07.04.2009 passed by the learned trial court has been set aside with a direction that the learned trial court will frame charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and immediately after framing of charge, to proceed further in accordance with law and the petitioners have been directed to appear before the learned trial court to face the trial. The prosecution case, in brief, is that for arresting the Nexalites and on the direction of S.P., Jehanabad, Special Task Force was formed and Sri Awadhesh Chaudhary, S.I, Ghosi after getting secret 2 information on 28.07.2005 at about 5.15 P.M. proceeded to village Uber and Paraman and when he came on the road at village Saho Bigha, then got secret information that in the village Kurre, Tola Tanr Per in the house of Bindo Paswan, illegal arms are being manufactured. Thereafter, the police party divided into three parts and the informant alongwith police personnel reached there and surrounded the house from northern, western and southern side. Thereafter, three persons came out in the house and started fleeing away towards the eastern side. Then, he police party chased them, but on warring, they did not stop. Then, firing was made in the air due to which one person fell down and he was caught by the police party and other two persons taking the benefit of garden, fled away. The accused, who was caught there, on interrogation, told his name as Arjun Mistry and on the basis of his confessional statement, they raided the house of Binod Paswan and the illegal rifles, which were being manufactured alongwith the manufacturing materials, half made rifles, spring, welding machine etc. were seized and seizure list was prepared and the accused Arjun Mistry was brought to the police station. On the basis of self statement of informant, Ghosi P.S. Case No.195/2005 was 3 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25 (1- B) (a), 26/35 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge- sheet no.182/05 was submitted against the accused Arjun Mistry and charge-sheet no.70/2006 was submitted against the accused Upendra Paswan and Binod Paswan (petitioners) showing the accused Binod Paswan absconder and accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for trial and disposal on 5.04.2006. After the trial, both the petitioners were held guilty under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of fine, simple imprisonment for two months under Section 26 (1) of the Arms Act. Both the sentences to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 7.04.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.32/2009/01/2009. After hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court has set aside the judgment and order dated 7.04.2009 passed by the learned trial court and the 4 case has been remanded to the learned trial court with a direction that the learned trial court will frame charge against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and immediately after framing of charge, will proceed further in accordance with law and the petitioners have been directed to appear before the learned trial court to face the trial. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not in the exclusive possession of the place from where the arms and ammunition have been recovered. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has given the maximum punishment, which he has in his jurisdiction for a period of three years. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned appellate court has found that it is clear that the arms have been recovered alongwith other manufacturing articles, but the learned trial court has not convicted the accused under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, which deals with the manufacturing of arms and ammunition in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act and the charge has not been framed under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms 5 Act and as such, an omission to frame the charge under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act has occasioned a failure of justice. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. The learned appellate court has found that arms and ammunitions as well as manufacturing articles for manufacturing the arms have also been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The learned appellate court has remanded the case in view of the provisions contained in Section 464 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. In the result, this petition is dismissed. It is needless to say that the petitioners will also get opportunity to lead their evidence. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)