JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 71/15, dated 11.05.2015, under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act (hereinafter to be called as "Arms Act") registered at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial Court. 2. As per the prosecution case, the main accused, who has expired now, was having a stolen pistol and the petitioner sold cartridges to him without verifying his license, so the petitioner has committed an offence under the Arms Act. Conversely, as per the petitioner, he is innocent, hence, the present petition for quashing the proceedings against him. 3. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the cartridges are not arms and no case under Arms Act is made out against the petitioner. He has further argued that there is no evidence that the petitioner has sold the cartridges, as no one has given such a statement and the case made out by the police is a false case and after appreciating the evidence and documents on record, the proceedings may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the definition of arms in Section 2 of the Arms Act makes the possession/sale of the cartridges an offence, as ammunition under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959, provides as under: "(b) "ammunition" means ammunition for any firearm, and includes- (i) rockets, bombs, grenades, shells [and other missiles], (ii) articles designed for torpedo service and submarine mining, (iii) other articles containing, or designed or adapted to contain, explosive, fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, whether capable of use with firearm or not, (iv) charges for firearms and accessories for such charges, (v) fuses and friction tubes, (vi) parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, ammunition, and (vii) such ingredients of ammunition as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; .. .. .." So, the cartridges are ammunition. .. .." So, the cartridges are ammunition. He has argued that the clear statements of the witnesses are there, which makes out a case that the petitioner without verifying license or even looking at the license, sold the cartridges to the person, who was having revolver, which was found to be stolen. Lastly, he has argued that as prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, the present petition deserves dismissal. 5. In rebuttal, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Golap Saikia vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr. and Gaganjot Singh vs. State's case. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 7. Admittedly, as per the case of the petitioner, the main accused was arrested by the police with pistol and seven rounds were found in the polythene bag and one round in magazine alongwith other material and during investigation the accused stated that he has purchased the cartridges from the present petitioner, who is a dealer of arms and ammunition in the name of Nand Lal and Company at Dharamshala. 8. As per the statement of PW-1, recorded before the police, he has stated that the main accused was found with pistol, eight kartoos and two key rings. PW-2 has stated that the accused Vikram alias Virzoo was apprehended, but he ran away by leaving behind his purse, shoes and bag and when his bag was searched, one pistol alongwith cartridges and two key rings were found, which were taken into possession by the police. However, now as per the death certificate placed on record, Vikran alias Virzoo has expired. 9. After going through the record in detail, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence on record to proceed against the petitioner, as he has himself admitted that he sold the cartridges to some person. It has also come on record that the person, who purchased the cartridges, was not having valid license to purchase the cartridges. In these circumstances, the definition of ammunition, as given hereinabove, makes out a case under the Arms Act against the present petitioner. It has also come on record that the person, who purchased the cartridges, was not having valid license to purchase the cartridges. In these circumstances, the definition of ammunition, as given hereinabove, makes out a case under the Arms Act against the present petitioner. The case is yet at the initial stage and this Court finds that the learned Court below, while framing the charge, has applied its mind and found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, as during the year, 2015, he sold out 12 cartridges of 32 bores to the main accused, in contravention of the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Arms Act and thereby committed an offence under the Arms Act. 10. This Court finds that in the instant case, provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Arms Act prime facie seems to be violated. The only basic question is that "whether there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner or not ?", the answer is "yes". So, under these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the proceedings against him. As far as the judgments (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as facts of the present case are totally different. 11. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 21st August, 2019.