Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. Perused the material on record.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 10.2.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in revision affirming the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Cr. Case No. 61/2013 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 336 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi restricted his arguments to the extent of charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contends that it is an admitted position that the fire-arm used by the petitioner in the alleged incident was a licensed one and as such he urged that the trial court committed a grave error of law while framing charge against the petitioner for the said offence. He thus implored the Court to quash the charge under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

4. Learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he too is not in a position to dispute t