Judgment 1. This is an application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for quashing the order dated 9-7-1984 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chas, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 347B/84 who, by the aforesaid order, has taken cognizance of the offences under Ss.147, 148, 149, 337, 341, 307 and 323 of the IPC, and also under S.27 of the Arms Act in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that certain dispute between the workers had arisen on 11-4-84. The workers of Hanmers Bihar Factory were on strike and while the informant along with his associates was discussing the problems arising out of that strike with the workers, at about 5 p.m. S.K. Roy came there and he also discussed the problems. When he was returning back his car was surrounded by another group of workers belonging to Ratan Industry. Thereafter, there was pelting of stones and somebody had fired also but that caused no injury. Two persons had sustained injuries, namely, Arjun Prasad Sharma and Rameshwar Bishwakarma. The police arrived and, thereafter, FIR was lodged and a case was instituted and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid Sections which is being challenged in this application. 3. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the order of taking cognizance only in respect of the offence under S.307 of the Penal Code and S.27 of the Arms Act. It was submitted by him that no case under S.307 of the Penal Code is made out and the cognizance taken under S.27 of the Arms Act is bad in law for want of necessary sanction by a competent authority as required under S.39 read with S.3 of the Arms Act, 1959 . 4. Therefore, the scope for scrutiny in this application is a limited one and we have to confine ourselves to examine the matter only in respect of the alleged offences said to have been committed under S.307 of the Penal Code and S.27 of the Arms Act. 5. Sec.39 of the Arms Act lays down that : "No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Sec.3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. 5. Sec.39 of the Arms Act lays down that : "No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Sec.3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. Sec.3 of the Arms Act says : "No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any fire-arm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder : 6. Sec.27 of the Arms Act prescribes punishment for possessing arms etc. with intent to use them for unlawful purpose. It says : "Whoever has in his possession any arms or ammunition with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose or to enable any other person to use the same For any unlawful purpose shall, whether such unlawful purpose has been carried into effect or not, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine". 7. Sec.39 of the Arms Act forbids prosecution of any person without sanction in respect of an offence committed under S.3 of the Arms Act. Sec.3 of the Arms Act simply prohibits possession of a fire-arm or acquisition of it or carrying the same or any ammunition unless one holds a licence for the same issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. These two Sections do not specify that if any firearm is used or intended to be used for any unlawful purpose or any offence is committed by that fire-arm sanction of a competent authority is needed for prosecuting such an offender. It is, therefore, explicit that for prosecution of a person for an offence alleged to have been committed by him under S.27 of the Arms Act, no sanction of a competent authority is needed. 8. Reading those Sections together along with S.25 of the Arms Act it is evidently clear that a person may possess a licence of a fire-arm and may have firearm but the moment he uses the firearm for any illegal purpose, he commits an offence under S.27 of the Arms Act and for prosecution for such offence no sanction of the competent authority is required. If a person is possessing a fire-arm simplicitor and has not used it, in any way, for any unlawful purpose or if he is being prosecuted for violation of any of the conditions of the licence, then in that event, sanction of the competent authority is necessary. But, even in case of a genuine and valid licensee, if he intends to use or uses any fire-arm for any unlawful purpose then for committing such type of unlawful offence, sanction of the competent authority is not at all needed. Therefore, the argument that for prosecuting a person for committing unlawful offence under S.27 of the Arms Act, sanction of the competent authority under the Arms Act is a pre-requisite, has no substance nor tenable in law. 9. It appears that a Bench of this Court had also an occasion to take into consideration this aspect of the matter in Cr. Misc. 3031/87(R) where it was held that in case of violation of S.3 of the Arms Act, it will mean a mere possession. If more than the possession is there, then the offence comes under S.27 of the Arms Act. The moment it is under the possession of the possessor who uses the same or intends to use the same for unlawful purpose, the offence comes within S.27 of the Arms Act and S.39 of the Arms Act does not make a provision for sanction in case a person is being prosecuted for an offence under S.27 of the Arms Act for which no sanction is required. Therefore, it has to be concluded on the basis of the aforesaid discussions that no sanction is needed for prosecuting a person for an alleged offence committed under S.27 of the Arms Act. 10. Coming to the case as to whether an offence under S.307 of the IPC is made out or not in this case, is not of very material consequence. Admittedly the offences alleged under other Sections except S.307 of the Penal Code and S.27 of the Arms Act, have not been attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, at the appropriate stage the court concerned will take into account as to whether an offence under S.307 I.P.C. is made out or not in this case. This matter can also be thrashed out under Ss.227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, at the appropriate stage the court concerned will take into account as to whether an offence under S.307 I.P.C. is made out or not in this case. This matter can also be thrashed out under Ss.227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the court is satisfied that no case is made out, it will pass necessary orders for trial of the offences by any competent court and if it is satisfied that an offence is made out under S.307 of IPC it will proceed with the case in accordance with law. 11. In this circumstance, at this stage it cannot be laid down as to what nature of offence is likely to be made out on the facts, circumstances and the materials collected during the course of investigation. The scrutiny of all these matters, at the time of framing of the charge, rest with the trial court and, as such, it will be improper to express any opinion in the particular circumstance of this case, in which the petitioner is bound to face trial in respect of other offences. 12. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly, dismissed.