Honble VERMA, J. — This revision petition by Basant Raj has been filed against the order of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sumerpur dated 11.2.1992 in Criminal Original Case No. 208/91 State vs. Basant Raj. whereby learned Magistrate has framed charges for offences under Section 20/27 of the Indian Arms Act and Rule 62 of the Arms Rules read with Section 30 of the Arms Act. (2). Briefly, stated the prosecution case is that on 2.5.91 at 2.15 A.M. petitioner Basant Raj was found in a drunken condition by the Head-constable Bhabhoott Singh Acting SHO, Sanderao at a place known as Kanpura Choraha. The petitioner was arrested for offence under Section 510 IPC by Bhabhoot Singh. Petitioner was searched by Bhabhoot Singh and upon search of the right pocket of the pant was found a 32 Bore revolver made in England of make Webley Scot limitted No. 85844 with 6 cartirdges. The petitioner was found to carry this revolver without there being a licence on the person of the petitioner Bhabhoot Singh seized the revolver and the cartridges. The relevant memos were prepared. Petitioner was challanged to face trial for offences under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. (3). It appears that petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 3.5.91 when a bail application was moved by him before the learned Magistrate. On 3.5.91 petitioner produced a licence bearing No, SPL/2184 DTN issued by Additional District Magistrate, Dharwar in the name of the petitioner. The licence was valid for the period 31.12.93 of all India excepting Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana. The petitioner also produced a photo-stat copy of the licence also. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Magistrate. (4). The petitioner prayed for release of the revolver and the cartridges to him but the learned Magistrate declined to do so with the result that the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 526/91. Basant Raj. vs. State of Rajasthan in this Court. This writ petition was decided by Honble Justice Shri Y.R. Meena on 2.12.91 and it Was ordered that the revolver may be returned to the petitioner. (5). The learned Magistrate after hearing both the sides framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 20/27 of the Arms Act and Rule 62 of Arms Rules read with Section 30 of the Arms Act. (6). (5). The learned Magistrate after hearing both the sides framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 20/27 of the Arms Act and Rule 62 of Arms Rules read with Section 30 of the Arms Act. (6). In this revision petition it is urged that no offence was made out against the petitioner. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the petitioner used the revolver for any unlawful purpose, whatsoever. The licence under which the petitioner was carrying the revolver was also produced before the Magistrate himself within a reasonable time i.e. on 3.5.91 itself and hence there was no contravention of Rules 62 so as to constitute an offence under Sec. 30 of the Arms Act. It is, therefore, urged that the petition should be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned MJM, Sumerpur should be quashed. (7). Learned Public Prosecutor supports the prosecution and submits that there was proper material before the learned Magistrate to frame the impugned charges against the petitioner and this Court should not interfere with the order framing the two charges. (8). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Court below. (9). It is an admitted position before me that petitioner held a valid licence with respect to the revolver and cartridges in question. The licence was valid till 21.12.93 as observed by the learned Magistrate. (10). The prosecution case is that the petitioner did not carry the licence on his person when the revolver was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that assuming this fact to be true, no case could be made out against the petitioner in as much as the licence had been produced before the learned Magistrate on 3.5.1991 i.e. within a reasonable period, after the search and the seizure was made. It is urged that no offence was committed by the petitioner under Section 20 or 27 of the Act at all. (11). Now this fact is not in dispute that the licence was produced by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate on 3.5.91 when the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate for remanding him or shortly thereafter. (12). Firstly, I will examine if offence under Sec. 20/27 of the Arms Act was at all made out. Sec. 20 of the Arms Act read as follows: — "Arrest of persons conveying arms, etc. (12). Firstly, I will examine if offence under Sec. 20/27 of the Arms Act was at all made out. Sec. 20 of the Arms Act read as follows: — "Arrest of persons conveying arms, etc. under suspicious circumstances : Where any person is found carrying or coveying any arms or ammunition whether covered by a licence or not, in such manner or under such circumstances as to afford just grounds of suspicion that the same are or is being carried by him with intent to use them, or that the same may be used for any unlawful purpose, any Magistrate,any police officer or any other public servant or any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, may arrest him without warrant and seize from such arms or ammunition." (13). A bare reading of this Section goes to show that this section does not constitute any offence whatsoever. This section empowers the Magistrate, a Police Officer or any other public servant etc. to arrest a person conveying Arm etc. under suspicious circumstances. When Sec. 20 does not constitute any offence, then no charge could have been framed against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sec. 20 of the Arms Act. (14). Now, I may deal with charge under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. This Section reads as follows : — "Punishment for using arms, etc. : (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Sec. 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited ammunition in contravention of Sec. 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of Sec. 7 and such use of act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death." (15). A bare reading of this Section goes to show that if the use of an arm or ammunition in contravention of Sec. 5 of the Act, which has been made punishable. This section would apply only when an arm or ammunition has been used. A bare reading of this Section goes to show that if the use of an arm or ammunition in contravention of Sec. 5 of the Act, which has been made punishable. This section would apply only when an arm or ammunition has been used. In the present case the revolver or ammunition was not used at all. It was merely being carried by the petitioner in the pocket of his pant as alleged by the prosecution and this is no offence. I am supported in my conclusion by a Division Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Hinder vs. State of Raj. (1) wherein learned Judges observed as follows : "In oredr to substantiate the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the prosecution has to establish that the gun was used for illegal purpose. There being no evidence to that effect. The charge under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act is not made out." (16). As already stated in the present case, the petitioner was only carrying the revolver and the ammunition in his pocket. There is no allegation, nor even a remotest suggestion that the petitioner used the revolver in any manner, what to talk of using if for any illegal purpose. I, therefore, find that charge under Sec. 20 read with Sec. 27 of the Indian Arms Act has not been made out even prima facie against the accused petitioner and the learned trial Magistrate did not have any material before him to frame a charge against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences namely under Sec. 20 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act. (17). Now, I may consider the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused was bound to carry his licence with him when he was carrying his revolver and ammunition in the pocket of his pant, and ought to have produced the licence forthwith when it was demanded. (18). Relevant part of Rule 62 of the Arms Rules read as follows: "62. (18). Relevant part of Rule 62 of the Arms Rules read as follows: "62. Production of licence : (1) Any person who (a) holds a licence granted or renewed or a pass, permit or certificate granted under these rules, or (b) is acting under colour of such licence, pass, permit or certificate, shall forthwith produce such licence, pass, permit or certificate upon demand by any Magistrate or any police officer of a rank not below that of an officer in charge of a police station." This Rule requires a person to forthwith produce the licence upon demand by any Magistrate or any Police Officer of a rank not below on that Officer in-charge of that police station. The question is as to what should the expression forthwith mean in the context of the present rules. Should it mean that a person holding the licence must carry his licence on his person along with weapon and must produce it then and there on demand being made by an Officer specified in the Rule or the licence may be produced within a reasonable period upon such demand. (19). In Bouviers Law Dictionary, Unabridged Rawles Third Revision Vol. I. Page 1289, expression forthwith has been defined as follows: — "Forthwith": As soon as by reasonable exertion confined to the object, it may be accomplished. (Approved in Dickerman vs. Trust Co., 176 U.S. 193, 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L. Ed. 423). This is the import of the term; of varies, of course with every particular case; 4 Tyrwh. 837; Edwards vs. Ins. Co. 67 N.Y. 274, Pennsylvania R.Co. vs. Reichert 58 101 III 621; 11 H.L. Cas. 337; Bennett vs. Ins. Reichert, 58 Md. 261, Meriden Silver Plate Co. vs. Flory, 44 Chio St. 437 7 N.E. 753. It is not as promptly as immediately; in some cases it might mean within a reasonable time; 7 Dowl. 789. When a defendant is ordered to plead forthwith, he must plead within twenty four hours, Wharton. In other matters of practice, the word has come to have the same meaning; 2 Edw. 328; Dickerman vs. Trust Co. 176 U.S. 193 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L.Ed. 423. A demand for an account forth with is not the same in substance and effect as a demand for an account within 15 days, Green vs. Kelley,64 Vt. 309, 24 All. 328; Dickerman vs. Trust Co. 176 U.S. 193 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L.Ed. 423. A demand for an account forth with is not the same in substance and effect as a demand for an account within 15 days, Green vs. Kelley,64 Vt. 309, 24 All. 133 where a verdict was returned between noon and one P.M. on Saturday, while the justice was hearing other cases, an entry of judgment on the verdict on Monday was sufficient under a statute requiring it to be rendered "forthwith" Sorenson vs. Swensen, 55 Minn. 58, 56 B.W. 350, 43 Am. St. Rep. 472. Where a chattel mortgae must "be forthwith deposited" to affect subsequent bonafide purchasers, the filing more than three months after execution was notice to purchasers who took title after the filing; Vickers vs. Carnahan, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 305, 23 S.W. 338. A statute providing that an order to revive an action may be made forthwith, means at the first term after plaintiffs death. Horsley vs. Ashers Heirs, 94 Ky. 314, 22 S.W. 434. When an insurance policy required notice of loss to be given forthwith, it was sufficient twelve days after the fire when no harm was caused by delay; Capital Ins. Co. vs. Wallane, 50 Kan. 53, 31 Pac. 1070)". (20) In my opinion the term forthwith in the context of the rules should not be construed as to mean then and there. Expression "forthwith" should be construed to mean within reasonable period. There may be myriad situations where a person having licence for a weapon may be carrying the weapon with him on his person and he may not be able to produce it immediately on being asked to produce the same. I may illustrate the situation by citing a hypothetical case. Mr. Tom holds a valid licence for a gun. He is sitting in his house and the gun is lying by his side. The licence is kept locked in an almiraha" the key of which is with his wife and the wife is out of sataion. Mr. Tom is attacked by unknown intruders who unlawfully enter his house. He fires at them and chases them at a distance from his house. The police comes in the meanwhile and the intruders have made good the escape and Mr. Mr. Tom is attacked by unknown intruders who unlawfully enter his house. He fires at them and chases them at a distance from his house. The police comes in the meanwhile and the intruders have made good the escape and Mr. Tom is arrested by the police with a gun in his possession but without being a licence on his person. He is asked to produce the licence on demand and he explains the situation but the officer insists upon immediate production and on Mr. Toms failure to do so, arrests him. Could it be said that he has committed an offence because he did not carry the licence of the arm with him on his person. In my opinion a categorical answer to the question would be No, No and an emphatic No. This is only one illustration and illustrations may be multiplied wherein a person holding a valid licence for a gun may not be in a position to carry the same with him on his person but may be in a position to produce it before a competent Officer within a reasonable period on being asked to do so. In the present case the licence was produced before the competent Magistrate, just the next day without wasting any time. It may be stated that the petitioner was under arrest and had been produced before the Magistrate on the next day. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there was no contravention of Rules 62 of the Arms Act so as to make it punishable within a meaning of Sec. 30 of the Indian Arms Act. Thus, I find that the learned Magistrate had no material whatsoever, to frame charge under Rule 62 of the Arms Rules read with Sec. 30 of the Arms Act against the petitioner. (21). No other point was urged before me. (22). In view of what I have stated above, I accept this revision petition, quash the impugned order and all proceedings taken in pursuance thereto. The accused petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail-bonds. The bail bonds are cancelled. The record of the learned court below may be returned with alongwith copy of this order.