[2025:RJ-JP:16593] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 740/2019 Manprit Singh S/o Shri Ajayab Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ramji Gate Kaman Dist. Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/04/2025 1. The instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner-accused aggrieved from order dated 07.01.2019 in Sessions Case No.48/2015 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Alwar, whereby charge under Section 7/25 Arms Act was framed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused while referring the grounds of revision petition submitted that after recovery of a countrymade pistol on 21.02.2012, Police Station MIA, Alwar has registered a case under Section 3/25 Arms Act and recommended prosecution sanction to prosecute petitioner-accused under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, but on basis of opinion of Public Prosecutor, a sanction was granted to prosecute accused under Section 7/25 Arms Act. He submitted that the recovered article is not an automatic pistol and does not fall within prohibited [2025:RJ-JP:16593] (2 of 3) [CRLR-740/2019] category, and the Trial Court has committed serious error while framing the charge under Section 7/25 Arms Act. At last, he submitted that at the most charge under Section 3/25 of Arms Act is made out. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of recovery on 21.02.2012, FIR No.93/2013 was registered at P.S. Udhyognagar, District Alwar. Police has recommended a case for prosecution sanction to prosecute under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, but the District Magistrate, Alwar after considering the report of the Public Prosecutor that the recovered pistol is automatic and falls within definition of “prohibited category”, hence granted prosecution sanction to prosecute under Section 7 Arms Act. On basis of sanction, a charge-sheet under Section 7/25 Arms Act is filed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Trial Court has framed charge under Section 7/25 Arms Act. 6. We have gone through the recovery memo, wherein it was mentioned that recovered pistol is semi-automatic. During investigation, police has found that offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act is made out. 7. When this matter was placed for prosecution sanction then the Assistant Public Prosecutor has opined that as per Rule 3 of Arms Rules, 1962 automatic and semi-automatic firearms are within prohibited category. The District Magistrate on the basis of legal opinion has granted prosecution sanction to prosecute accused under Section 7 of Arms Act. [2025:RJ-JP:16593] (3 of 3) [CRLR-740/2019] 8. Prohibited arms is defined under Section 2(i) of Arms Act, 1959 and it indicates that if pressure is apply to trigger, missile continue to be discharged only pressure is removed from trigger or the magazine containing the missile is empty. Herein this case, as per report of police, the recovered firearms is semi-automatic and as per Rule 3, both automatic and semi-automatic fall within definition of prohibited arms. 9. The District Magistrate acting upon legal opinion has granted prosecution sanction and at the stage of charge, it is not possible for the Court to draw a conclusion contrary to legal opinion. A report of armourer dated 25.02.2013 indicate otherwise but this report is contrary to seizure memo. The clarification is subject matter of evidence. 10. In view of aforesaid, no case for discharge is made out and the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge against the petitioner. 11. As a result, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /118