JUDGMENT
D.N. Prasad, J.
1. This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 13.9.1996 assed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1995 arising out of Dhanbad PS Case No. 669/94 corresponding to G.R. No. 4305/1994 registered under Sections 25(1)(b)/26/27/35 of the Arms Act, whereby and whereunder the petitioners’ prayer for discharge in the case was rejected.
2. The prosecution case as indicated in the FIR is that on 12.11.1994, the Informant had received information on telephone that a firing was being done in village Jharudih and after entering the same in Station diary being Station diary No. 316 dated 12.11.1994, the Informant along with other police officials proceeded to village at about 9.15 a.m. where it was found that 6/7 persons armed with rifle and country-made pistol indulged in firing and after seeing the police party started feeling away, but on chase two persons were apprehended by the police party on the roof of the house of Deomuni Sharma, who disclosed their names as Ajay Kumar Sharma and Bimal Kumar. From the possession of Ajay Kumar Sharma, one leaded rifle and 10 live cartridges of 3.15 bore were recovered. From the possession of Bimal Kumar, one loaded country-made pistol and 5 live cartridges of 3.15 bore were recovered. Accordingly, the seizure-list was prepared in the presence of the independent witnesses and the case was registered against all the petitioners. The police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners. However, the petitioners had filed a petition before the trial Court praying therein to discharge them, and after hearing both sides, the said petition was dismissed by order impugned dated 13.9.1996.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned A.A.P. for the State.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted before me that actually two cases were registered for the same occurrence dated 12.11.1994, of which one case was registered for the offence under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and 27 o± the Arms Act, whereas the instant case was registered under the Arms Act. It is further submitted that there was no recovery from the possession of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and so the Arms Act does not apply against them. It is also submitted that there was allegation about recovery of one rifle from the possession of the petitioner No. 4, but he has already furnished licence for the same and this petitioner is also not responsible for the allegation as alleged. It is further argued that Section 35 of the Arms Act does not apply to this case, as the Arms have not been prepared or recovered from any premises. However, in course of argument, it is pointed out that the case registered under Section 302 and other allied offences was disposed of by the trial Court and accused-persons were convicted in the said case of which the appeal is also pending in the High Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.A.P. pointed out before me that the learned Court below found prima facie case under the Arms Act and as such, there is no illegalities in the impugned order to be interfered.
6. Perused the record, from perusal of the F.I.R., it is apparent that the loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of petitioner No. 3 Bimal Kumar, who was arrested at the spot. It further appears that from the possession of the petitioner No. 4 one loaded rifle and 10 live cartridges were recovered at the relevant time.
However, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel that the petitioner No. 4, possessing licence for the rifle.
7. From the perusal of the FIR itself, it is evident that two accused persons being petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were apprehended at the spot with fire-arms and cartridges whereas other accused fled away from the place of occurrence. The said arms was apparently used by the accused persons/petitioners at the same time as a result of which two persons were murdered for which another case being Dhanbad Sadar PS Case No. 668/94 was registered under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Other three accused, who fled away from the place of incidence, were quite aware and in know about the possession of illegal arms with the accused namely Ajay Kumar Sharma and Bimal Kumar.
Section 35 of the Arms is very clear which read as under:
Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation for premises in certain cases Where any arms or ammunition in respect of which any offence under the Act has been or is being committed are or is found in any premises, vehicle or other place in the joint occupation or under the joint control of several persons, each of such persons in respect of whom there is reason to believe that he was aware of the existence of the arms or ammunition in the premises, vehicle or other place shall, unless the contrary is proved, be liable for that offence in the same manner as if it has been or is being committed by him alone.
8. There appears sufficient material at this stage against the petitioners for framing charge under Sections 25(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act. It is also settled that the charge can even be framed for the material on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about commission of offence (AIR 1980 SC 52). There is no doubt that two persons were murdered by the accused-persons/petitioners at the same time by using the said fire-arms and they were apprehended at the spot with fire-arms which evidently established the case prima facie sufficient to frame charge. The Court below considered the evidence on record in detail and passed the impugned order which does not require to be interfered. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners may raise all these points before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.