Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2252 (PNJ)

Om Pal v. State Of Haryana

2018-05-15

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Arvind Singh Sangwan, J —Prayer in this petition is for quashing of impugned orders dated 18.09.2017 and 06.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram whereby the application filed by the petitioner for return of his fire arm/revolver has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner faced a criminal trial in FIR No. 293 dated 26.07.2015 under Section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Pataudi, District Gurugram, on the complaint made by one Som Dutt son of Balbir. The licensed revolver of the petitioner was seized by the police during investigation. 3. The petitioner faced the sessions trial vide Sessions Case No. 144 dated 11.12.2015 and vide judgment dated 19.09.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, acquitted the petitioner of the charges and observed that the case property be dealt with as per Rules, after expiry of period of appeal or revision, as the case may be. 4. The petitioner filed an application dated 03.01.2017 for returning the revolver on the ground that he has been acquitted and he is entitled to get back the case property i.e. Revolver bearing mark O-32 MK III Regd. No. FG-58363 which is lying deposited in Police Station Pataudi as he is the licensed owner of the revolver. 5. Vide impugned order dated 06.06.2017, the Court below has declined the application on the ground that the complainant and his brother have stated that they have preferred an appeal before this Court which is fixed for 03.07.2017 and they apprehend that the petitioner may repeat same crime as there is a land dispute pending between the parties. 6. The petitioner, thereafter, again moved an application on 11.09.2017 that being an Ex-serviceman, he needs the firearm for taking a job and the statement made by aforesaid Som Dutt and Bhom Singh that they have filed an appeal before this Court is not correct statement, as per record. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 18.09.2017 has again dismissed the application. 7. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 8. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 18.09.2017 has again dismissed the application. 7. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 8. In pursuance to the notice of motion order dated 24.11.2017, reply by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pataudi, Gurugram has been filed and it is stated in the reply that the impugned orders have been passed by the Lower Court, in accordance with law and prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. However, reply filed by the State is silent about filing of any appeal/revision and does not disclose whether the State has filed any appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner or not. Since, this reply has been filed on 15.01.2018 i.e. after a long lapse of time, as the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 19.09.2016, it is apparent that no appeal has been filed by the State, otherwise it could be verified in the affidavit. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present petition. 11. It is not disputed that the firearm/revolver was seized by the police during investigation in aforesaid FIR and prosecution, having failed to prove the charge against the petitioner, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 19.09.2016. 12. The impugned orders passed by the Court below are based on the premise that since the appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment before this Court, it being the case property cannot be released. However, there is nothing on record to show that any appeal is preferred by the State or the complainant. The trial Court, while acquitting the petitioner, has clearly observed that the case property be dealt with as per Rules, after expiry of period of appeal or revision, as the case may be. Since the period of more than 1 year and 08 months has passed and no order is produced by the respondent/State to show that any appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.09.2017 and 06.06.2017 are set aside. 13. Since the period of more than 1 year and 08 months has passed and no order is produced by the respondent/State to show that any appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.09.2017 and 06.06.2017 are set aside. 13. The trial Court/Successor Court is directed to release the case property in favour of the petitioner, subject to furnishing an undertaking/bond that in case at any subsequent stage, an appeal/revision is filed challenging the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner will surrender the revolver back before the Investigating Agency, if so required, in accordance with law. It will also be open for the police/complainant to move an application for recalling the permission if the petitioner is found misusing the firearm in any manner. Disposed of.