Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 06.09.2018 passed in S.K. Puri P.S. No. 285 of 2014 registered u/s 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act by learned Special Judge CBI-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby and whereunder, learned trial Court rejected the discharge petition.

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution is that petitioner, after receiving injury, was admitted in hospital and during inquiry it has come to light that he received injury in the flat of co-accused Saurav Kumar. On search, of the flat of co-accused Saurav Kumar, one pistol, two live cartridges and two empty cartridges, hidden beneath the bed, were recovered. It is further alleged that on 05.08.2024, petitioner and co-accused Saurav Kumar were talking in the aforesaid flat and petitioner was showing the pistol to co-accused Saurav Kumar for the purpose of sale and some defect cropped up in firing and due to this petitioner sustained gun shot injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has been implicated wrongly and falsely in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this petitioner has received two gun shot injuries on his body ie. on the left hand and left thigh. So, the petitioner happens to be a victim of the alleged occurrence and not an accused. In this case it is apparent that this petitioner, at best, is an eye witness of the occurrence. So, his name may be included in the name of prosecution witness list but the investigating officer of the case has intentionally dragged his name as one of the accused of this case. Chargesheet has been submitted in this case. Hence, entire material evidence against this petitioner is on record and from perusal of the same it appears that there is no ingredient of any section in which cognizance has been taken.

5. It is also submitted that this seizure list of the case has revealed that the alleged recovery of arms and ammunition was neither made from the body of the petitioner nor from his place. Such recovery cannot be fastened upon him by any legal means. The criminal liability of others cannot be shifted upon innocent person like the petitioner by any legal means. It is further submitted that the Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act attract in that situation that the accused must be found in possession of any firearm or ammunition. Whereas, it is admitted fact that nothing has been recovered from conscious and physical possession of the petitioner. So, ingredients of these Sections are lacking against the petitioner in all respects. Impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of conjuncture and surmise without consistent and cogent evidence against the petitioner in respect of discharge to the petitioner from the aforesaid offence. The impugned order is fit to be disbelieved and set aside. Learned trial Court has totally failed to appreciate the evidence/material against this petitioner for the purpose of framing of charge because it is well settled principle of law that prima facie appreciation for the purpose of taking cognizance and framing of charge is quite different and learned Trial Court has to apply its judicial mind for the purpose of framing of specific charge under specific Section. According to facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that the implication of present petitioner in the instant case is wrong and false. The chain of circumstance of this case completely goes to show that the present case is totally false and continuance of criminal proceeding in the learned Court below against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court as such the order dated 06.09.2018, passed in connection with S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 285 of 2014 is fit to be q