IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14909 of 2008 MD.SAYEED ANSARI @ MOHAMAD SAHEED ANSARI, SON OF ABDUL HAFEEZ ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MORWARA, P.S. KHANPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR. ------ PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate Mr. Manas Prasash, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad, Tiwary, A.P.P. 2. 21.01.2011 Heard. The petitioner has chelleged the order of cognizance dated 19.2.2007 whereby learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, took cognizance under Sections 25(1- B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act in Warishnagar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2004. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay that from perusal of the First Information Report, it is apparent that petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence nor any recovery has been made but only on the statement of the arrested co- accused persons, the petitioner’s name figured in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that against the Informant, the petitioner lodged the case prior to the present case and was on inimical terms from before having series of litigations and as a result, he has been implicated in the present case. It is also contended that the matter was kept pending since 2004 and ultimately, vide supplementary charge sheet, the petitioner was charge sheeted in the year 2006. The investigating agency charge 2 sheeted the petitioner under Section 25(1)(b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 302 as well as 105 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance has been taken only under Sections 25(1)(b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act as has been taken against the other accused persons. It is true that the learned Magistrate has not recorded any reason for taking cognizance under the Arms Act particularly in the predicament when the petitioner was not arrested on the spot nor the First Information Report reflects any recovery of Arms from the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage as from perusal of the records, it appears that the order of cognizance has been passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate after perusal of the record when the prima facie case was found. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charge, if charges have not been framed as yet. It is expected from the learned court below to consider all the contentions of the petitioner in accordance with law. With this observation, the application is disposed off. S.Ali ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)