1 S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 988/2009 Anil Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 503/1993 Dated : 27.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. D.K. Garg, for the applicant. Mr. Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. By way of this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant Anil Kumar has impugned the order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Dholpur, whereby the application with regard to release of 12 bore double barrel gun on Supurdginama was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order including other material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that in a Session Case No. 98/1989, the accused persons namely Geetam Singh and Rajpal Singh were convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC but rest of the accused persons namely Sardar Singh, Ranveer, Balveer and Bijendra were acquitted for the offences under Sections 147, 307, 323 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. During investigation, one 12 bore double 2 barrel gun was recovered by the police which belonged to accused Sardar Singh. The accused Sardar Singh is said to have expired in the year 1995, in proof whereof death certificate has been filed in the Court. The applicant Anil Kumar happens to be the son of Geetam Singh and grand-son of Sardar Singh, who has expired. The license of the 12 bore double barrel gun was in the name of Sardar Singh when the same was seized by police during investigation of this case but after expiry of Sardar Singh, the applicant Anil Kumar got his name transferred in place of Sardar Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a photo-stat copy of the original license, which is available on record as Annexure-3. This 12 bore double barrel gun is now no more required for the purpose of trial and the same has been lying in Maalkhana of the court. Learned Additional Session Judge, Dholpur dismissed his application filed for obtaining this gun on Supurdginama on the ground that appeal had been pending against the judgment dated 23rd November, 1993 in the High Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, rather he has submitted that the gun in question may be released on Supurdginama. 3 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that 12 bore double barrel gun No. 3974, which now stands registered in the name of applicant Anil Kumar son of Geetam Singh and grand-son of Sardar Singh is no more required by the court for the purpose of trial. The sessions case has been disposed of and albeit, the appeal against the judgment dated 23rd November, 1993 rendered by the Additional Session Judge, Dholpur has been pending in the High Court but the accused Sardar Singh , at whose instance this gun was recovered and who was facing trial in the offences under Sections 30 of Arms Act has been acquitted and now appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed against the accused Sardar Singh, hence, I am of the view that the 12 bore double barrel gun No. 3974 seized by the police during investigation can now be released on Supurdginama to its license holder Anil Kumar son of Geetam Singh and grand son of late Sardar Singh. The impugned order dated 6th September, 2007 does not seems to be just and apt and deserves to be set aside. 6. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned order 4 dated 6th September, 2007 rendered by Additional Session Judge, Dholpur is set aside. 7. Therefore, it is ordered that the 12 bore double barrel gun No. 3974 be released to its license holder, the applicant Anil Kumar son of Geetam Singh and grand son of Sardar Singh subject to the decision of appeal, on his furnishing Supurdginama in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with a surety of like amount with this stipulation that he shall produce the said gun in the court as and when required during pendency of the appeal in the High Court. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 5