Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1032 (ORI)

KAILASH CHANDRA JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-11-19

PRADIP MOHANTY

body2008
JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - Heard Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Mishra, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 2. This revision is directed against the Order Dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh in G.R. Case No. 735 of 2007 rejecting an application u/s 457 Code of Criminal Procedure. for release of the rifle. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner as informant lodged an FIR before Nayagarh P.S. registered as Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 398 of 2007. In connection with the said case, the police seized his 22 rifle bearing number 2K-01260, P.SSI. No. 232, its licence and 4 live catridges on being produced by the Petitioner. For release of those seized articles, the Petitioner filed an application u/s 457 Code of Criminal Procedure., but the Learned S.D.J.M. rejected the same inter alia on the ground that the seized rifle and the catridges are necessary in the counter case, i.e., G.R Case No. 736 of 2007 wherein the Petitioner is an accused. 4. Mr. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the basis of the final report submitted by the police the counter case, i.e. G.R Case No. 736 of 2007, has been closed on 28.09.2008 and in that view of the matter there Is no necessity to retain the rifle. He further submits that production of rifle and licence before the authority for the purpose of renewal is necessary. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the decision in Shivendra Narayan Bhanjadeo @ Shivendra Narayan Rabindra Narayan Bhanjadeo Vs. State of Orissa, . 5. Mr. Mishra, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the Petitioner is the accused in G.R Case No. 736 of 2007 arising out of Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 399 of 2007 registered u/s 307 Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and therefore the Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition u/s 457 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Perused the record and the decision cited by the Petitioner. In the instant case, Petitioner is the informant and the licence holder. The period of licence has expired in the meanwhile. 6. Perused the record and the decision cited by the Petitioner. In the instant case, Petitioner is the informant and the licence holder. The period of licence has expired in the meanwhile. Annexure-4, the certified copy of the Order Dated 28.09.2008 shows that G.R. Case No. 736 of 2007 has been closed on the basis of the final report and memo filed by the complainant in the said case. As such, there is no necessity to retain the rifle in question for the trial of the said case. Therefore, by applying the ratio decided in Shivendra Narayan Bhanjadeo ' Shivendra Narayan Rabindra Narayan Bhanjadeo (supra), this Court directs the S.D.J.M., Nayagarh to release the seized rifle, its licence and live catridges in favour of the Petitioner on the following conditions: (i) The Petitioner shall furnish cash certificate of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand); (ii) he shall produce three coloured photographs of the rifle in question; (iii) he shall furnish an undertaking that he shall keep the same in good condition; shall produce the same before the I.O. twice a month for verification and shall also produce it as and when necessary by the Trial Court; shall not erase/change the number and character of the rifle; and shall not dispose it of in any manner or hand it over to anybody; and (iv) if the Petitioner, during pendency of the case, commits any criminal act, police shall re-seize the rifle in question immediately. 7. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. 8. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted as per rules. 9. CRLREV disposed of.