A1 challenges framing of a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act as against him in S.C.No.191 of 2015 by the learned 3rd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai at his Camp Sittings at Usilampatti, Madurai District.

2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, taking the allegations Section 25 of the Arms Act is not attracted. Thus, charge No.3 framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act is unsustainable in law.

3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in the F.I.R. Section 25 of the Arms Act has been added. In his final report the investigation officer has not included Section 25 of the Arms Act. However, at the time of framing of charges, the trial Court has framed a charge under the said section also.

4. I have anxiously considered their submissions and also perused the impugned multiple charges framed as against the revision petitioner.

5. Under charge No.3, it is alleged that A1 is stated to have assaulted the complainant with the bud of the pistol on his head and he is to be charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

6. Section 25 of the Arms Act runs as under:

25. Punishment for certain offences?

(1) Whoever?

(a) manufactures, sells, transfers,