Allowed

Santosh Jitendra Rai v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Aug 2013APEAL/379/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 452 CrPC, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the return of a revolver, rounds, and arms license seized from the appellant who was acquitted of related offences. The court quashed the trial court's order not to return the property.

What did the court decide?

Order directing return of revolver, rounds, and arms license to appellant; quashed trial court order sending M.O.1, 2, 4 to District Magistrate and keeping license in file.

Santosh Jitendra Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

cri-apeal-379-13.doc

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2013

¶5

Santosh Jitendra Rai

¶6

Aged about 38 years Residing at Kishundaspur Village, Police Station Kandhrapur, Taluka Sadar, District Ajamgad, Uttar Pradesh .. Appellant

¶7

(Org. Accd.No.1)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

(At the instance of Kashimira Police Station vide C.R. No.I-341 of 2009) .. Respondent

¶11

Mr. Sandeep Singh for appellant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State.

¶12

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS &

¶13

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶14

RESERVED ON: AUGUST 01, 2013.

¶15

PRONOUNCED ON: AUGUST 08, 2013.

¶16

JUDGMENT [ Per P. V. Hardas, J.]:

¶17

This is an appeal under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal

¶18

Procedure filed by the appellant, who was original accused no.1 in Sessions

¶19

Case No. 127 of 2010, praying for return of the property which was seized

from him.

cri-apeal-379-13.doc

We admit the appeal and with the consent of the learned counsel

¶24

for the parties, heard it finally at this stage.

¶25

The appellant was accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2010, which came to be decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 29/12/2011. The appellant, along with other accused, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 203 read with Section 140 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial court, while acquitting the accused, passed orders regarding the disposal of the property i.e. M.O. No.1 – revolver, M.O. No.2 – rounds and M.O. No. 3 – cases of fired rounds and directed that the said M.O. Nos.1, 2 and 3 be sent to the District Magistrate, Thane. The trial court further directed that M.O. No. 4 i.e. arms license be kept with the file. The other muddemal articles were ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Undisputedly, no appeal has been filed in this court challenging the acquittal of the appellant or the other accused.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP. The learned counsel for the appellant has

¶27

¶28

cri-apeal-379-13.doc

¶29

urged before us that the appellant possesses an arms license i.e. M.O. No. 4 and had purchased a revolver – M.O. No.1. The appellant had also purchased the live bullets which are M.O. No.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant since these articles had been seized from the appellant and as the appellant was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged, the trial court ought to have ordered the return of the property to the appellant. It is also urged before us that there is no challenge pending in this court to the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant and, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for depriving the appellant of the possession of the property which he owns. The learned APP has supported the order of the trial court and has urged for dismissal of the appeal.

¶30

Undisputedly, according to the prosecution, the aforesaid revolver was seized from accused no.1 i.e. the appellant. A seizure panchanama at Exh. 57 was also accordingly drawn. The said revolver was seized by PW 23 – PI Anil Patil. The seizure, however, was not supported by the panch witness PW 15 – Santosh Prasad and the trial court, therefore, acquitted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Undisputedly, the arms license is in the name of the

¶31

¶32

cri-apeal-379-13.doc

¶33

appellant. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, the property

¶34

which was seized from the appellant ought to have been returned to the appellant. The trial court has not given any reason as to why trial court found it inexpedient to order the return of the property to the appellant. The trial court has also not given any reason as to why it felt that the property be sent to the District Magistrate, Thane. There was no reason whatsoever for retaining the arms license with the file and not returning the same to the appellant.

¶35

Upon considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, according to us, the order of the trial court directing that M.O. No.1 – revolver and M.O. No.2 – rounds be sent to the District Magistrate, Thane and the direction that M.O. No. 4 - arms license be kept with the file deserves to be set aside. In respect of M.O. No.3 i.e. cases of fired rounds, according to us, no interference in the said order is called for.

¶36

We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash and set aside the order of the trial court directing that M.O. No. 1 – revolver and M.O. No.2

¶37

– rounds be sent to the District Magistrate, Thane and M.O. No. 4 – arms

¶38

¶39

cri-apeal-379-13.doc

¶40

license be kept with the file. We, however, do not interfere with the direction regarding M.O. No.3 – cases of fired rounds that they be sent to District Magistrate, Thane. We direct that M.O. No.1 – revolver and M.O.

¶41

No.2 – rounds and M.O. No. 4 – arms license be returned to the

¶42

appellant/accused no.1 as it was seized from him.

¶43

Appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶44

(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Santosh Jitendra Rai v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Jitendra Rai v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore Shyamji Meharia Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjaykumar Dhondiram Cahvan and Ors.

Pravin Tukaram Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Kishor Bawiskar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra

Jaykisan Lakhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Rafiq Shahabuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra