JUDGMENT
Aggarwal, J.
1. In this application, the petitioner seeks to quash the charge framed against him on 21st April, 1976 Under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ulhasnagar, in Criminal Case No. 659 of 1974.
2. The few facts are that at the material time the petitioner was Sub-Inspector of Police. On 14th April, 1972 at about 8-30 p.m., he was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Branch for accepting illegal gratification from the complainant Rege. When he was searcn- ed, a country made pistol was found in his possession along with the alleged tainted money. For the commission of the alleged offence of bribery, he was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Thana, ki Special Case No. 2 of 1972. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty. However, this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1974 acquitted the petitioner on 23rd Jan. 1976. On 6th March, 1974, a charge-sheet Under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act was submitted against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ulhasnagar. On 20th April, 1976, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate stating that the Court had issued a warrant against him to appear on 21st April, 1976. He contended that he was not served with summons. He undertook to attend the Court on 21st April, 1976 and on the subsequent dates of hearing. In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed that the warrant sent to Ambernath Police Station be called for and that he was ready to furnish surety. On that application, the petitioner was released on bail in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and was also fined Rs. 25/- for his absence on previous dates. On 21st April, 1976, the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioner Under Section 2g (1) (a) of the Arms Act.
3. Against this order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 74 of 1976 in the Sessions Court, Thana. This was partly allowed and the order of imposition of fine of Rs. 25/- was set aside. As regards the application for quashing the charge, the same was rejected. The present application has been filed Under Section 482 of Cr.PC 1973.
4. Two points have been urged in support of this application. Firstly, the present trial is barred Under Section 403 (1) of the old Cr.PC which provides that a person who has been once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made Under Section 236, or for which. he might have been convicted Under Section 237. We are unable to appreciate as to how these provisions are attracted to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner was firstly tried for the offence of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The facts giving rise to that offence are entirely different from the facts which give rise to the framing of the charge under the Arms Act. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the country made pistol was found in the same transaction of alleged acceptance of illegal gratification and, therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge of bribery no second trial can be commenced in respect of the alleged offence under the Arms Act. There is no substance in this argument as the facts are totally different for the purpose of the offence of bribery and of being in possession of the country made pistol. These are two different offences though their commission was discovered in one transaction.
5. The second point made out was that having regard to the provisions of Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the prosecution cannot be instituted against the petitioner as more than six months have passed after the date of the act complained of. The alleged offence took place on 14th April, 1972, whereas the present charge-sheet was filed on 6th March, 1974. Assuming that this section is applicable, nevertheless in order to get the benefit of these provisions, the petitioner will have to establish the necessary facts before the trial Court.
6. For these reasons, we do not sea any merit in this application. Hence the application is dismissed. The rule is discharged. Stay vacated.
