Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2001-02-13

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - Though this appeal, the appellant Surendra Singh seeks to challenge the order dated 16.9.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused persons of the offence under Secs. 147, 336, 307, 307/149, 323 and 324/149 IPC has ordered for delivery of seized articles viz., gun, cartridges, cash and Belt to one of the accused Surendra Singh, the appellant before this court, after expiry of six months from the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for appeal /revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that all the accused including the present appellant have been acquitted of the offences charged with and since there is no appeal/revision against their acquittal and that the period of limitation for filing appeal/revision has already expired, the appellant who is having valid licence of the seized articles is lawfully entitled to have the possession of the same. 4. To decide the present appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 92 of the General (Criminal) Rules as regards disposal of property to await the result of appeal or revision. Rule 92 reads as under: "In cases where appeal or revision lies to the Supreme Court, High Court, Sessions Court or the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court shall not dispose of the case property for 6 months after the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal or revision or both and if intimation regarding the filing of appeal or revision is received, till the disposal of the appeal or revision." 5. Admittedly, there is no appeal/revision against the impugned order and that the period prescribed for filing appeal/revision has also expired. 6. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, I am of the view that the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be maintained. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the appellant was in lawful possession of the aforesaid articles seized in the case and continues to hold the valid license, it would be in the interest of justice if the seized articles are handedover to the appellant on Supardginama. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the appellant was in lawful possession of the aforesaid articles seized in the case and continues to hold the valid license, it would be in the interest of justice if the seized articles are handedover to the appellant on Supardginama. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the seized articles viz., Gun, Cartridges, Cash and Belt be handedover to appellant Surender Singh on his furnishing a Supardaginama of Rs. 30,000/- with a direction to produce, the same as and when directed to do so. 7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. *******