Q ( 3mg Banch BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.A.N0. “Sig? /2004 KANSHINATH TRIGUN, AGED , ABOUT 46 YEARS, SON OF LATE ALIYAR TRIGUN, CASTE-BRAMHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - 'MUNUWAN, POST KARRA, P.S. AND TAH. RAJPUR, DISTI'. SURGUJA (CHHATI'ISGARH.) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATI'ISGARH CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 454 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 XI-HC-22 i Shr Dubey, l ed applicant] appellant, poin out that the applicant came to knuw about thc judgmcnl application for return of th'e, that the order 6f submitt] .months will be reckoned n! n‘om‘ thc date of judgm application has bccu lilcd been prodliced The said ho 7/11/2005” It 1s also cont attribulaed wluch axe not 1n t Reliance has been pl ‘ ' Apex Court in the Cases of State of Guiarat xeported counse for the on. 17/ 1/2004. and he filed the article on 6/ 2/ 2004. It is stated ng the valid licence Within two uni the date of lsmowledge and not t. It is contended that the willu'n time and the licence has =nce is valid mm 27/ 11/2002 to ended that the woods have been he cider aced upon the judgment of the Sunderhhai Ambalal Desai vs. in 2002 am sew 5301 at _N_.t m‘porttd in M .1979 5C e Orissa High’Court in the case vs. state mported in 1996 p case Of N. Madhvan (supM has 1829 and the judgment of of Baikunthnath 'Mohan Cr.L.J. 661. The Apex Court in the held as under: ‘When after an inq discharged or act normally restore produced before it c Lose atstody it was taken i the pereun from w) Departure from this airy or trial, the aocused’is ruitted, the Court should the “‘prOperty, which is r which is in its custody, to rule ofpmctim is not to he - e am W l \ XI—HC—ZZ 1 “1k w d\ ‘é\ k‘ > v On perusal of the record, it is noted that the accused ' 1:1as been acquitted not willy Mm the o§ence punishable imdcr Sections307 81s 294 IPC, but also undcr Sec. 25(1-B){a of the Arms Act and the applicant was not given'any nou'ce. The property/gun belongs 1D the applicant. It is’a valuable aIQ‘tigle The applicant is ha‘ring the licence, which had been inroduccd’ before the court balow. The applicant had Eed ‘the ' cpplication on 6/ 2/2004 within me pcrind limit the datc/ol; r :knoMedgc. Even othcnvisc :the Court pass‘cs an order; ivay that it should not be sui :right accrued, ‘ Having ccnSidcmd the View of the afomsaid judgmt impugwd oxder dated 16/8l2004 passed by the court below is set aside. The seized anicle i.e. gim be returned to the applicant. thc provision is such that when 'ti should‘bc construed in such a :h, which depriVes a person of the totality 01? the cimlmlstanccs 85 in :nts, the petm''on is allowed. The W Sdl— / r Acting Chief Justice u" W , 7, , 7, , 71,, 7,7 MeW 7 h A k- ) ‘