IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 303 of 2011 Gulzar Singh Cheema S/o Jagir Singh R/o Village Bagwara P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Dehradun 2. Station House Officer, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ....……Respondent Shri M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Deepak Bisht, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisht,A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal revision no. 44 of 2011, Gulzar Singh Cheema vs. State, whereby the order dated 23.03.2011, passed by Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, refusing to release the revolver of the petitioner, is affirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Gulzar Singh Cheema is owner of the revolver with valid license which was seized by the police on 10.02.2011. The revolver no. is 1775. It is also admitted fact that the said weapon is not connected with any crime. 4. Th Chief Judicial Magistrate, has refused the release of property in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner had criminal history. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, affirming the order of the Magistrate shows that he has refused to release the property (revolver) to the petitioner only on the ground that during the pendency of the revision the period of license is expired. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that unless revolver is released in favour of the petitioner he cannot get the license renewed, as the weapon required to be produced before the District Magistrate concerned. It is further pleaded that license could not be renewed only for the reason 3 that the weapon was seized from the house of the petitioner without there being any crime no. with which the same was connected. 6. In the above circumstances, I find that the impugned orders challenged before this Court are erroneous in law. Had the weapon been connected with some crime, or the possession thereof was illegal, there could have been justification in refusing to release the weapon but when the petitioner was admittedly a license holder of the weapon, and the weapon was not connected with any crime, merely for the reason that the petitioner had criminal history the release of the weapon should not have been refused. However, this Court has no hesitation in observing that the Renewing Authority may consider this fact whether the petitioner had criminal history or not to decide whether the license should be renewed or not. 7. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed, and both the impugned orders dated 23.02.2011, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, and order dated 14.03.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal revision no. 44 of 2011, are 4 hereby quashed. The weapon shall be released in favour of the petitioner who had a valid license at the time the weapon was seized, and the same is not required in connection with any crime. However, the petitioner shall give an undertaking to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, that if he fails to get renewed the license of the weapon, he will deposit the weapon within one month of its release before the District Magistrate concerned, or the authorized person under Arms Act, 1959. If the petitioner fails to deposit back the weapon regarding which he could not get the license renewed, the authority concerned under Arms Act may take appropriate action under the law. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 11.08.2011