Disposed

Anil Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024A482/21455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 482 CrPC regarding alleged illegal possession of firearms and live cartridges, the Court noted arguments that recovery was false and prior proceedings were not adequately investigated. The applicant, a licensed shop owner, argued recovery was mistaken. No final decision on merits was rendered in this order.

What did the court decide?

Matter listed for hearing on 13.2.2025; interim stay of further proceedings granted pending rejoinder affidavit.

Anil Kumar Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21455 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA today is taken in Court on record. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

It has been submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicant showing false recovery of ten (10) live cartridges and copies of three firearms licences belonging to other persons, whereas, the present applicant runs a firearms shop in the name and style of Onkar Gun House under the partnership firm and he is also one of the partner in the firm. Learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis upon the registration certificate i.e. Form GST REG-06 (page No.42 of paper book) wherein name of the present applicant is mentioned along with firearms shop namely Onkar Gun House and in the column of 'Constitution of Business', 'Proprietorship' is mentioned. It is next submitted that all the cartridges and copies of firearms licences at the relevant time was carried out by the present applicant being an authorised person. The persons to whom the alleged three firearms licence belonged have not been adduced as a witnesses and their statements have not been recorded during the investigation. Alleged confessional statement of the present applicant has incorrectly been mentioned in the FIR which has no evidentiary value. The FIR has been lodged merely on the basis of speculation and proper investigation has not been conducted by the Investigation Officer. The firearms shop is being run under the partnership firm and the licence of aforesaid shop has been renewed by the authorities concerned after proper scrutiny of relevant records. During scrutiny no shortcoming or discrepancy has been found in the record maintained by the firm/firearms shop. There is nothing in the case diary and the charge sheet to prima facie prove that the present applicant is involved in selling live cartridges illegally. In paragraphs No. 17, 18 and 19 of the affidavit, it is unequivocally stated that firearms shop is being run

¶8

through partnership firm and false recovery has been shown from the possession of the present applicant whereas he has illegally possessed all the documents and the live cartridges as mentioned in the FIR. The averment made in paragraphs No. 17, 18 and 19 of the affidavit has not been refuted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. In view of the fact that the present applicant is a licencee of firearms shop, the 10 live cartridges and three firearms licenses recovered from him cannot be held in his illegal possession

¶9

The matter requires consideration.

¶10

Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are being represented through learned AGA.

¶11

List this matter on 13.2.2025.

¶12

In the meantime, learned counsel for the applicant shall file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed today, if any.

¶13

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the applicants in Case No. 1568 of 2020, State Vs. Anil Kumar Sahu, under Sections 3/25/30 of Arms Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Prayagraj, arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2019, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad, shall remain stayed.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 vinay

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Achal vs Amit Kumar Anand, S.P. and Another

Smt Seema Devi Yadav vs Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma, Principal Secretary and Another

Smt Marjeena vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ganesh Prasad vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hira Lal vs Jeevan Lal

Smt Sushma Rani @ Seema Rani and Another vs Smt. Dhanpati and 2 Others