ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the common order dated 17.02.2015 passed in Crl.R.P. No.203 of 2015 by the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, under which the orders of discharge passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No.3716 of 2014 in CC No.376 of 2014, were modified. 2. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2006 the accused No.3 threatened LW.2 for settlement of disputes pending with Antares Systems Ltd., Bangalore, and further alleged that on 27.07.2006 accused No.3 called LWs.4, 8 and another to the Central Court Hotel and demanded to settle disputes with the said company and that the accused No.3 has shown the Pistol. Once again on 01.08.2006, accused No.3 and others threatened LWs.1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. Thus, the complaint arose and subsequently, after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the trial court has taken cognizance vide CC No.376 of 2014. During the pendency of the said CC, the petitioner-accused No.11 has filed Crl.M.P. No.3716 of 2014 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge him from the above case. The trial court vide order dated 13.05.2015 allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the said case. Aggrieved by the said discharge order, the State has preferred Crl.R.P. No.203 of 2015 and the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide orders dated 17.02.2016, has partly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order of the trial court in respect of the offences under Sections 506 , 386 and 201 read with 34 IPC and confirming the same in respect of the offences under Sections 25(1) and 27 of the Indian ARMS ACT . Aggrieved by the said order in Crl.R.P. No.203 of 2015, the present revision case is preferred by the petitioner-accused No.11. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is accused No.11 in CC No.376 of 2014 and the offences alleged against him are under Sections 448 , 506 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the ARMS ACT vide FIR No.441 of 2006 and that there is no material on record to maintain the said charges against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is accused No.11 in CC No.376 of 2014 and the offences alleged against him are under Sections 448 , 506 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the ARMS ACT vide FIR No.441 of 2006 and that there is no material on record to maintain the said charges against the petitioner. He further submitted that the revisional court ought to have seen that the trial court has discharged the petitioner from all the offences against him as there are no grounds to frame the charges against the petitioner and that there is no evidence on record to disclose the involvement of the petitioner. He further submitted that the revision court did not consider the evidence on record in a proper perspective and that without there being any material about the involvement of the petitioner, has erroneously set aside the orders of the trial court without recording sufficient reasons. He further submitted that even as per the allegations in the complaint, it is the accused No.3, who threatened the de facto complainant by showing the firearm and none of the witnesses have whispered about the name of the petitioner at any point of time or about his involvement. Thus, the revisional court must have confirmed the orders passed by the trial court, but it has set aside the said order, which is not just and proper. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner threatened or intimidated or wrongfully confined any person or committed extortion. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued and hence, the petitioner is entitled for discharge. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the order passed by the revisional court in Crl.R.P. No.203 of 2015. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Magistrate has discharged the petitioner from all the offences alleged against him, but the revisional court has properly evaluated the material on record and has allowed the revision to the extent of continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 506 , 386, 201 and 511 IPC, but it has discharged the petitioner from the offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian ARMS ACT . He further submitted that the revisional court has given correct reasoning for its decision and that since there is no material to connect the accused with the offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian ARMS ACT , the petitioner was discharged for the said offence, but there is ample material to prove the offences under Sections 306 , 201 read with 511 and 34 IPC against the petitioner herein. Thus, the revisional court has allowed the revision case to continue the proceedings against the petitioner for the said offences. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders passed by the revisional court. 6. Perused the record. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that initially the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, discharging the petitioner for the offences under Sections 506 , 386 and 201 read with 34 IPC and the offences under Sections 25(1) and 27 of the Indian ARMS ACT , holding that there is no prima facie material to prove the offences against the petitioner. However, it is borne out by record that the main allegation against the petitioner-accused No.11 is that accused Nos.1 to 3 have taken the firearm from the petitioner and threatened LW.2-K.Kalyana Chakradhar Reddy. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said firearm was recovered from accused No.11. There is no seizure of the said weapon in this case. Thus, without any seizure of the said firearm during the course of investigation and without producing the same before the court, the charge under Section 25(1)(a) and 27 of the ARMS ACT would not be sustainable. Therefore, the revisional court was correct in expressing its view of discharging the petitioner for the said offences by upholding the orders of the trial court in that regard. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the revisional court as against continuance of the proceedings for the other offences under Sections 506 , 386 and 201 read with 34 IPC. As far as the other allegations are concerned the record reveals that on the confession made by accused No.3, police could seize one Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP13H 5678 and personal baggage of the accused No.11 containing land settlement mafia documents, his original pistol licennce, 32 live cartridge, steel rod, two sticks, hotel receipts, boarding pass and letter of Antares dated 04.05.2006. The said vehicle was registered in the name of LW.6-Loknath. The confession of accused No.11 was recorded in the year 2012 while the date of offence is in 2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a huge time gap between the registration of case and recording the confession of the accused and that the said confession is not voluntary. That the incident was alleged to have occurred on 01.08.2006 whereas the complaint was lodged on 03.08.2006 and the name of accused No.11 was not mentioned in the complaint or in the FIR. Based on the confessional statements of accused Nos.4, 7, 12, the police added the names of the other accused in this case. 9. It is borne out by record that accused No.13 provided the authorization letter to accused Nos.1 and 3 to operate and act as representatives on behalf of Antares Systems Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. With the authorization letter given by accused No.13 the accused hatched a plan to extract money, step by step from LW.2 and the other employees of C1 India Pvt. Ltd., Khairatabad, Hyderabad. The Accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 trespassed into the CI India Pvt. Ltd., by forming themselves into gang with other accused i.e. accused Nos.5 to 12 and started threatening LW.2 and other employees of CI India Pvt. Ltd with dire consequences and tried to extract money from LW.2. 10. The Investigating Agency could collect prima facie evidence to proceed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 506 , 386, 201 read with 311 and 34 IPC. The alleged occurrence of incident points out prima facie case against the petitioner. The truth or otherwise in the said allegations can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial. The de facto complainant does not know the names of the persons, who were present on the alleged two occasions, but he has mentioned in his complaint that 20 to 25 people participated in the incident and the same is supported by other witnesses. Thus, the statements of these witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, the revisional court has rightly allowed the revision petition to continue the proceedings for the offence under Sections 506 , 386 and 201 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner. Thus, the statements of these witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, the revisional court has rightly allowed the revision petition to continue the proceedings for the offence under Sections 506 , 386 and 201 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the revisional court in this regard and it needs no intervention by this Court. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 17.02.2015 passed in Crl.R.P. No.203 of 2015 by the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.