Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1625 (ALL)

Vilal Akhtar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2023-07-10

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Case called out in the revised list. 2. None responds to press this application on behalf of applicant. 3. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the order dated 25.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Moradabad, by the learned trial court had declined the release application of double barrel gun during the pendency of the Sessions Trial No. 412 of 2000 -State Vs. Sardar Akhhtar and others on 09.12.2002, this Court directed to convert the application into revision and send it to the appropriate court. An apology has been sought by the order on 05.08.2019 that application could not be converted in to criminal revision. 4. However, none is present to press this application, it is not a legal constitutional or fundamental right of license holder to get the firearm released during the course of trial. Moreover, when at the time of passing the order the impugned double barrel gun was not even sent to F.S.L for Ballistic report. 5. The trial court similarly declined the release application on the ground that during the course of trial it would not be released alleged to be used in commission of crime. 6. This Court has a similar view. So far as the release of impugned weapon is concern under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are provisions regarding the disposal of the property. 7. Under Section 451 Cr.P.C any property can be disposed of by the criminal court during the trial, if the property-in-question is not disposed of for release of weapon during the course of trial. It would certainly be disposed of on the conclusion of the trial under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. This Court is of the view that there is every possibility for disposal of the concerned sessions trial, it would not be pending today. Moreover, another opportunity under Section 452 Cr.P.C has been available to the petitioner/revisionist to get the double barrel gun released as per the result of the case. 9. On the basis of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that this application is not maintainable probably the matter has become infructuous as none is present to press this application. 10. Hence, the application is accordingly is disposed of.