JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU,J. : On the basis of an F.I.R filed by I.I.C. Plant Site P.S., Rourkela on 23.8.2005 alleging recovery of some arms from the petitioners and others Plant Site Rourkela P.S. Case No.315/2005 was registered for commission of offences under Section 25 (1)(a) and 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act. The said case was subsequently registered as G.R Case No. 1528/2005 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Panposh. After perusal of the charge sheet and other relevant documents contained in the case diary and after due application of mind, learned S.D.J.M., Panposh by order dtd.12.12.2005 took cognizance of the offences under Section 25(1)(a)/25(1-A) of the Arms Act. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for dis¬charging them of the alleged offences, but the learned S.D.J.M. by order dtd. 16.1.2006 rejected the said petition and framed charges under Sections 25 (1) (a) and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act against them. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners and one Kishore Singh @ Brij Kishore Singh preferred Crl. Revi¬sion before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela which was registered as Crl. Revision No.2/2006. After discussing the materials in extenso by order dtd.1.9.2006 learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition on the ground that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. Being aggrieved the petitioners circumventing the provision of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. have preferred this Crl. Misc. Case invoking inherent jurisdiction. 2. According to Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the peti¬tioners, there is absolutely no material to connect the petition¬ers with the alleged crime and for the self-same offences they are facing trial in G.R. Case No.1528/2005 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Panposh. It is stated that in view of pendency of the aforesaid G.R. Case where cognizance has been taken for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302,307,326,364-A, 511 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act initiation of G.R. Case No.1528/2005 is not justified. 3. The submissions are strongly repudiated by learned counsel for the State. The allegations prima facie reveal that the I.I.C. Plant Site P.S. on 23.3.2005 received reliable informa¬tion and conducted raid at Sukha Sagar Hotel. 3. The submissions are strongly repudiated by learned counsel for the State. The allegations prima facie reveal that the I.I.C. Plant Site P.S. on 23.3.2005 received reliable informa¬tion and conducted raid at Sukha Sagar Hotel. In course of search of Room Nos.108 and 109 of the said Hotel they recovered one country made revolver, and two.38 live ammunitions of 1997 make, a single shot pistol three.315 live catridges, one country made single shot pistol and three .315 live ammunitions from Brij Kishore Singh. From Papu Khan they recovered four .315 live ammunitions. They were possessing the same without licence. They were arrested and after due investigation charge sheet was sub¬mitted. It appears that after due consideration of the F.I.R, case diary and available records, the learned S.D.J.M on being satisfied that prima facie materials were available, took cogni¬zance of the aforesaid offences. This Court does not find any infirmity or error in the impugned order. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela has also perused the materials and arrived at a conclusion that charges had rightly been framed. 5. After going through the materials, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and dismisses this Crl. Misc. Case. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed.