CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mahantesh Bhopal Bennalli vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 17 March 2014 · Citation: (2014) 03 KAR CK 0254

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Phaneendra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1)(A), 27, 3, 5 · Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 451, 457
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 2341/2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 523 words

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

2.

It is an undisputed fact that the Raibhag police during the course of investigation in Crime No. 82/2012, has seized a revolver of NP.MPF Company 32 Caliber No. MK-1A1350/04 and also the licence of the revolver bearing No. DC/III/297/R-NPB dated 31.12.2013 pertaining to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the trial Court seeking return of the said revolver as well as the licence to the interim custody of the petitioner in order to produce the said licence and also the revolver to the licencing authority for renewal from 31.12.2013 onwards as, it is contended that the said licence was only valid up to 31.12.2013. Within a stipulated period the said licence has to be got renewed by the petitioner. Learned Sessions judge has rejected the said application on the ground that the said revolver is required for the identification at the time of evidence as charge sheet filed for the offences under Sections 3, 5, read with 25(1)(A), 27, 29(A) of Arms Act.

3.

Learned Sessions judge has dismissed the application on the ground that the said weapon was used for the commission of the offences. Therefore, if it is released, there is every chances of tampering with the said weapon. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not mentioned anything as to why the licence as claimed by the petitioner for his interim custody could not be released for the said purpose. The licence produced before the trial Court by the police is a document to be marked during the trial as on exhibit wherein revolver has to be marked as material object.

4.

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the police at the time of seizure of the weapon have seized, sealed and produced before the Court. If it is released in favour of the petitioner, there may be chances of tampering the said weapon during the course of trial, there may arise a problem with regard to the identification of the said revolver.

5.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further submits that licence was produced by the petitioner can be ordered to be released and the revolver has to be retained. In view of the above, I am of the opinion there is no legal impediment to release the said licence in favour of the petitioner as prayed, for the limited purpose. It is also made it clear that in the event of the competent authority requesting for production of the revolver for renewal of the licence, the liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the trial Court for appropriate orders in this regard. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The application filed u/s 451/457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is partly allowed.

The Trial Court is directed to release the licence of bearing licence No. DC/III/29/R-NPB dated 23.03.2005 to the petitioner retaining a suo-motu certified xerox copy of the same, with a condition that, within two months or earlier to that from the date of taking the licence to his custody, he has to return the said document immediately after the purpose is served.