BASETTAPPA FAKIRAPPA KADAGAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the I Additional sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 17-6-2000 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner claiming possession of M. O. 1-revolver said to be seized from the second respondent in C. C. No. 926 of 1990.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the revision are that the petitioner is said to have deposited M. O. 1-revolver bearing No. A-23346 of "weblay and scott, England", on 4-9-1987 with the accused R. G. Ullagaddimath who is arms dealer at Hubli. When it was so deposited the accused is said to have sold the same in favour of the 2nd respondent for a bare consideration of Rs, 5,000/- on 17-12-1987. Further, the petitioner is said to have moved the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, seeking for return of revolver deposited with the accused and the Additional Deputy commissioner, Belgaum, on 7-4-1988 has passed an order directing the accused Ullagaddimath to return the deposited revolver to the petitioner. Further it is alleged that there is shown to be an agreement, Ex. D. 1, to sell the revolver to the accused for Rs. 45,000/- and out of which rs. 25,000/- is said to have been received, not as a sale consideration but only as security and he has only subscribed his signature to Ex. D. 1 on the blank paper and he never knew that it would be converted into sale agreement etc. In Ex. D. 1 it is also shown to be the sale consideration for Rs. 45,000/- only and out of which he had paid Rs. 25,000/ -. Thereafter when the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner to return to the accused Ullagaddimath is said to have not returned the revolver to the petitioner who is the complainant and as such he is said to have filed a complaint before the Police Sub-Inspector, Hubli and the same is registered in Crime No. 281 of 1988 for the alleged offence under Section 406 of the IPC. After a detailed investigation the police is said to have filed a charge-sheet against the accused Ullagaddimath. Meanwhile during the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate Court, the accused Ullagaddimath died, the proceedings was abated. Subsequently a claim was made in respect of seized revolver from the 2nd respondent who is alleged to have purchased the same from the accused on 17-11-1987 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. Subsequently after considering the applications of the complainant as well as the second respondent the learned Magistrate disposed of the applications filed under Section 452 of the Cr. P. C. , holding that property has to be returned to the person from whom it was seized and that the claim of the complainant cannot be entertained since it requires an elaborate enquiry. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the I Additional sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli and the learned Sessions judge by orde~ dated 17-6-2000 has dismissed by the claim of the petitioner stating that M. O. 1-revolver could be recovered by initiating separate legal action before proper forum. Both the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and of the Sessions Judge are assailed on various grounds.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and also the learned Additional state Public Prosecutor.