The court clarified that merely using a licensed firearm unlawfully does not constitute an offense under the Arms Act without a licensing violation, while affirming sufficient grounds for attempted murder charges pending trial.

Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. This CRLMC under Section528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- C.J.M., Balasore in S.T. Case No.116 of 2022 and the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Crl. Rev. No.44 of 2024 rejecting his application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for to discharging him from the offences under Section 307 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25/ 27 of the Arms Act.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The litigation arises from Town P.S., Balasore P.S. Case No. 52 of 2021 registered on the written report of Alisa Singh, alleging that on 13.03.2021 at about 6:00 PM the present petitioner (Laxman Behera) fired a shot at the informant’s husband Ananda Singh, leading to registration of offences under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(ii) After investigation by the IIC, Town P.S., charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act; the S.D.J.M., Balasore took cognizance in C.T. Case No. 195 of 2021 (order dated 07.07.2021) and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

(iii) Post-committal, the case was made over to the court of the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Balasore and was registered as S.T. Case No. 116 of 2022.

(iv) Before framing of charge, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge from offences under Section 307 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act; the trial court rejected the discharge petition by order dated 29.08.2024.

(v) The petitioner challenged the rejection order by filing Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2024; the Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore by order dated 08.01.2025 dismissed the revision and confirmed the trial court’s order refusing discharge.

(vi) In the revision proceeding, the petitioner appeared in person (without counsel), and the State was represented through the Associate Lawyer; the revision court noted materials such as injury report indicating entry and exit wound in the left upper abdomen and also noted existence of eye-witnesses as per record.

(vii) The revision court recorded that the District Magistrate, Balasore granted sanction for prosecution under Sections 25/27 Arms Act by order No. 1966 dated 02.07.2021.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The petitioner challenges the revision order dated 08.01.2025 as illegal/perverse and alleges that both the revisional court and the trial court rejected discharge mechanically without properly appreciating record material.

(ii) The petitioner asserts he is a retired professor, septuagenarian, handicapped, with no criminal antecedents; he claims absence of prior enmity or motive with the victim, and argues that lack of motive undermines the allegation of “attempt to murder” under Section 307 IPC.

(iii) On merits, he pleads the incident arose from a parking-related altercation; he claims the victim manhandled/attacked him and, in the course of a tussle, a single bullet went off “unknowingly/accidentally,” i.e., without intention to fire at the victim.

(iv) He emphasizes that only one bullet was fired though the revolver allegedly cont