Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 621 (MP)

Matadin v. State of M. P.

2006-05-01

S.A.NAQVI

body2006
ORDER 1. Learned public prosecutor submits that State has not filed any appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2005 passed by V ADJ, Fast Track Court, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2004 and no revision is pending against impugned judgment. With the consent of both the parties, heard finally at motion stage. Appellant Matadin preferred this criminal appeal against impugned judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed by V ASJ, Fast Track Court, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2004 against finding of confiscation of Mouser 306 Bore Model No. 1917 which was seized by Police from Upendra Singh Tomar. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant Matadin was having valid licence of seized mouser gun. His licence was suspended due to pendency of Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2004 by District Magistrate, Morena. He is licence holder of his gun. His gun has been seized from the possession of his son Upendra Singh Tomar. Learned trial Court confiscated this Mouser holding that Upendra Singh was not having any valid licence. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow appeal and to set-aside aforementioned finding of trial Court and to return seized mouser gun to appellant. 2. Appeal has been opposed by learned public prosecutor. He prays for dismissal of appeal. 3. On perusal of impugned judgment, it is clear that appellant Matadin has been charged for offence under section 148/307/149 of IPC. Upendra Singh has been charged under section 148/307 of IPC and under section 25 (1) (kha) and (ka) and section 27 of the Arms Act. Mouser 306 Bore Model No. 1917 has been seized from accused Upendra Singh Tomar on 4.6.2004. Note on seizure memo shows that appellant Matadin is licensee of seized gun. Matadin, Upendra Singh Tomar and other co-accused were tried for the charges levelled against them and were acquitted. Learned trial Court confiscated seized mouser gun holding that Upendra Singh Tomar was not having valid licence for possession of mouser gun. Learned trial Court did not consider that Matadin had valid licence of seized gun and his licence was suspended by District Magistrate, Morena due to pendency of sessions trial in which, on 29.11.2005, he was acquitted. Matadin is owner of the seized gun and he is entitled to get back seized mouser gun. Learned trial Court committed illegality in confiscating mouser gun seized from Upendra Singh Tomar. 4. Matadin is owner of the seized gun and he is entitled to get back seized mouser gun. Learned trial Court committed illegality in confiscating mouser gun seized from Upendra Singh Tomar. 4. Consequently, as per above discussion, appeal is allowed. Order of trial Court pertaining to confiscation of mouser gun 306 Bore Model No. 1917 is hereby set-aside and it is directed that seized mouser gun from Upendra Singh Tomar shall be returned to appellant Matadin s/o Shri Bedri Singh Tomar aged 65 years r/o Village Kuthiana Tehsil Ambah, District Morena on furnishing a valid licence for possession of seized gun.