JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.2.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in Majholia P.S. Case No. 143 of 2001, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 25(1-B)(A), 26 and 34 of the Arms Act and transferred the case to the file of Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, 1st Class for disposal. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the Sub-Inspector of Majholia P.S. submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Majholia P.S. stating inter alia that on 1.7.2001 during investigation of Majholia P.S. Case No. 117 of 2001 registered under Section 379/511 I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-B)(A), 26 and 37A of the Arms Act, it came to light that the alleged countrymade gun shown in the seizure list, in fact, belonged to Parmanand Shahi and that appropriate action be taken against him. It was also alleged that to make the case grave the said Parmanand Shahi had alleged that the gun had been recovered from the possession of Dasai Manjhi. It was also stated that in course of investigation some witnesses have stated that the said Parmanand Shahi had got taken a photograph of Dasai Manjhi with garland of bullets. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the entire case is false as Parmanand Shahi, petitioner no. 2, has filed a case on 1.7.2001 against Dasai Manjhi being Majholia P.S. Case No. 117 of 2001. It has also been submitted that the date of occurrence is 1.7.2001 and on the same date Dasai Manjhi had been apprehended. It was also submitted that in Majholia P.S. Case No. 117 of 2001 the police have submitted charge-sheet under Section 379 I.P.C. and as such Majholia P.S. Case No. 143 of 2001, i.e. the instant case, was the outcome of mala fide. 3. It is apparent that the date of occurrence in both the cases is common i.e. 1.7.2001. In this situation it is difficult to say as to which of the two cases is bona fide and which is mala fide. This aspect of the matter can only be sorted out before the trial court in a full-dressed trial where evidence is laid by both parties. In this situation it is difficult to say as to which of the two cases is bona fide and which is mala fide. This aspect of the matter can only be sorted out before the trial court in a full-dressed trial where evidence is laid by both parties. That apart the plea of the petitioners that Majholia P.S. Case No. 143 of 2001 was by way of mala fide and counter blast to the case filed by them i.e. Majholia P.S. Case No. 117 of 2001 is their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage. 4. In the situation stated above it is not for the High Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a case and counter case. 5. In the result I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. 6. Let the case diary be sent down to the court below forthwith.