IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10349 of 2008 1. Raj Kumar Paswan 2. Manoj Paswan ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shri Mahesh Chandra Pandey, A.S.I. of Police --------------------- Opposite parties ----------- 3 8-9-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.8.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under sections 25(1-B)A, 26/35 Arms Act in Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 16/2007/G.R.No.61/07 and accusation against accused Tikai Paswan has been dropped. Informant of the case is Mahesh Chandra Pandey, A.S.I., Bibhutipur Police Station. He has submitted a written report to Officer Incharge that on 30.1.2007 he along with other Police Officials proceeded for arrest of accused and raid of hide outs accused persons of different cases. In that continuation, he came to the house of one Tikai Paswan, raided his house. He was found taking meal in his Veranda on a Chouki, to watch the Police Officials tried to flee but was caught. On his 2 search no incriminating material was found from his possession but below his bed a loaded country made Pistol and a cartridge recovered, after investigation charge sheet is submitted against petitioners. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that raid and recovery is corroborated by several witnesses including members of raiding party and independent witnesses but supervising authority of the case involved these petitioners that Pistol and cartridge was kept by these petitioners without any basis, no doubt there is single witness that is daughter of Tikai Paswan. She also is stating about recovery from the bed of Chouki but petitioners were seen by her in suspicious condition, it appears only to exonerate the real culprit. A direction has been given by the supervising authority to submit charge sheet against these petitioners that is complied and taking into consideration the accusation against petitioners, cognizance has also been taken which is bad in law, so cognizance and prosecution against the petitioners is not 3 liable to be sustained. Accordingly, impugned order of cognizance dated 28.8.2007 passed by the Magistrate is quashed and the application is allowed. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)