IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. W.J.C. No.864 of 2010 RAM DEV YADAV, son of Late Bhardwaj Yadav, resident of Village-Jogia, P.S. Brahmpur, District Buxar. ---Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, through Director, Prosecution, Patna. 2. Collector, Buxar. 3. Superintendent of Police, Buxar. 4. Officer-in-Charge, Brahampur (Choki) P.S. District-Buxar. ---Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Pramod Kumar Singh & Mr Binod Kumar No.2, Advocates For the S t at e : Mr Manikant Mishra, G.P. 25 & Mr. Kinkar Kumar, A.C. to G.P. 25 --------------- 4. 5.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner through this writ application prays for quashing of the order dated 22nd of March, 2010, as contained in Annexure 4, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Buxar in connection with Brahmpur (Choki) Police Station Case No.260/2009 rejecting his petition for release of the Double Barrel- Breech Loading (DBBL) gun bearing no.15562/88. The prayer for release was rejected by the aforesaid order (Annexure 4), on the ground that the court was not satisfied as to under what circumstances the gun in question was recovered from the accused of the said case, namely, Shivjee Yadav, while he was fleeing away. The Judicial Magistrate while declining the request further found - 2 - that the gun would be the material exhibit and accordingly declined the request. The petitioner thereafter assailed the order in Criminal Revision No.131/2010, which, upon hearing, was dismissed by order dated 29th of May, 2010, as contained in Annexure 5. The court also took into consideration the similar consideration. It was also taken into note that the petitioner was neither the informant nor the accused and under what circumstances, the gun and the cartridges were recovered from the accused of the aforesaid case. Considering the above, the court was of the view that the gun in question is not entitled to be released and, as such, rejected the said criminal revision application. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the alleged violation of the provisions of the Arms Act, if the petitioner used to satisfy the ownership of the gun as also the licence in his favour as well as he was ready to furnish the security, it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to release the gun in question and, as such, the order contained in Annexure 4, whereby the Judicial Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the gun as also the order passed by the Sessions Judge, as contained in Annexure 5, rejecting the criminal revision application against the order, as contained in Annexure 4, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the revision application ought not to have been entertained as it is not a very exceptional case which calls for interference by this Court in its Writ jurisdictions since the petitioner has already availed - 3 - of the remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge, which was rejected by order dated 29.5.2010 (Annexure 5). Besides the above, it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is also not as such justifying release in his favour for the reasons that, as claimed by the petitioner, he is the owner of the double barrel breech loading gun (DBBL) in question as also the licence in his favour and as such, the contention of the petitioner that the gun ought to have been released is not justified. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, in view of the fact that it has not been made clear, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the double barrel breech loading gun (DBBL) and has a licence granted to him by the licensing authority under the Arms Act under certain conditions, as to how the gun and the cartridges, which were used in the criminal case, was recovered from the co-accused of the said case and as such, merely a person being the owner of the seized article ipso facto is not entitled to get the release of the seized item. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)