Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.;— 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 2. In this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') the charge-sheet No. 14 of 2011 related to Case No. 673 of 2011 (State Vs. Asrar Ahmad Khan), Case Crime No.2669 of 2010, under Sections 30 Arms Act (for short the 'Act'), P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki filed against the petitioner and cognizance taken thereon and proceedings pending in consequence thereof in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki were sought to be quashed. 3. The fact relevant for deciding this petition are that according to the prosecution case during search by the police at the residence of one Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby arms and ammunition (guns and cartridges) belonging to present petitioner and one Susheel Kumar Misra were found in the possession and premises of Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet against the present petitioner was filed under Section 30 of the Act and separate charge sheet against one Susheel Kumar Misra was also filed under Section 30 of the Act. Another charge sheet against Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby was also filed under Section 25/27 of the Act. 4. The charge sheet filed against the petitioner and cognizance taken thereon assailed on the ground that police falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. The petitioner was present at the time of alleged recovery with his licence and therefore no offence against the petitioner is made out. 5. The learned AGA has submitted that prosecution cannot be quashed on the ground pleaded by the petitioner because prosecution case is otherwise. According to the prosecution case Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby was possessing the arms and ammunition belonging to the petitioner without any valid licence. He did not show arms licence belonging to the petitioner to the raiding party nor petitioner shown that he had given authority to keep the arms and ammunition belonging to him in terms of licence to Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby. Hence, prosecution cannot be quashed. 6. Having considered the argument of rival parties, I am of the view that petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:- (i) The petitioner according to the prosecution was not present when raid was carried out at the residence of Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby by police. Hence, prosecution cannot be quashed. 6. Having considered the argument of rival parties, I am of the view that petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:- (i) The petitioner according to the prosecution was not present when raid was carried out at the residence of Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby by police. (ii) The arms and ammunition was recovered from the residence of Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby. Neither Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby was having any authority to keep it nor the petitioner able to show any authority permitting Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby to keep the arms and ammunition in terms of licence. 7. In view of above, prima facie, it is clear that petitioner committed breach of the terms and conditions of the licence issued to him in respect of arms and ammunition found in possession and at the residence of Shoeb Quidwai @ Bobby and thereby rightly challaned and prosecuted under Section 30 of the act. 8. The petition lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. _____________