STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAJOR NARESH VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE state of karnataka, along with its corps of detectives, are the petitioners before this court. They have questioned the legality of the order dated 19-9-1994 (Annexure-E) passed by the xii additional city civil and sessions judge, metropolitan area, Bangalore in criminal appeal No. Ill of 1993 as also that of the order dated 24-6-1993 (Annexure-F) passed by the learned magistrate, Bangalore in c. c. No. 2559 of 1992. The orders pertain to the disposal of 162 firearms and the same have been placed at annexures-e and f respectively to the writ petition. facts one Mr. Arjun vij was carrying on business in firearms under the name and style M/s. Arjun Armoury at No. 4002, high point, palace road, Bangalore. For the said purpose he had obtained licence under the Provisions of the arms Act, 1959 (in short the act' only) and the rules framed thereunder. According to the personal affidavit filed, by the deputy superintendent of police, cod in the present proceedings on 7-2-1997, the said licence was valid for the period 24-6-1985 to 31-12-1990.

(2.) IT is a matter of record that the said arjun vij was murdered in the intervening night of 3/4-4-1990 at Bombay along with one hardened criminal namely chandra hasa jagannatha shetty. When the Bombay police, in the course of their investigation, learnt that the said arjun vij was running a fire arm shop at Bangalore, they requested the high ground police station at Bangalore to help them in searching the shop of the deceased arjun vij. This is how, on 19-4-1990, the shop premises of arjun vij, namely M/s. Arjun armoury was broke opened and in all 162 arms of various kind and make along with ;3721 live cartridges' were seized under an inventory. The reasons assigned for seizure of firearms in question was that according to the seizing police officer the said firearms were neither supported by appropriate documents nor were found to have been properly accounted for. The seizure was reported to the jurisdictional magistrate at Bangalore who directed the city armed reserve, head-quarters to keep the arms for safe custody. Copies of the mahazar and property form have been placed at annexures-a and b respectively to the writ petition. Subsequent to the said seizure the police registered crime No. 182 of 1990 under Section 25 (l) (m) of the arms act read with Rule 26 of the arms rules framed under Section 44 (2) (j) of the act. On 28-6-1990, the director general of police, considering the case involved that the firearms were manufactured in foreign countries, referred the case for investigation to the corps of detectives. But since the owner of the shop namely Mr. Arjun vij had already been murdered, the deputy superintendent of police (cod), investigating officer, filed an abate charge-sheet on 25-6-1992 and thus the criminal proceedings came to be closed.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY mrs. Kamala vij, as mother and legal heir of the deceased Arjun Vij, filed two applications on 16-3-1993 and 17-6-1993 both under Section 452, cr. P. c. before the learned judicial magistrate for return of the seized firearms or in the alternate to direct the police to sell the same by public auction and sale proceeds thereof be given to her. The said claim was made by mrs. Kamala vij on the plea that her son deceased arjun vij had made a will in her favour bequeathing all his properties/estate to her. The learned magistrate, on hearing the counsel for the applicant and the public prosecutor, by his order dated 24-6-1993 (Annexure-F) directed for return of firearms in question to her subject to the condition that she produces licenses for possessing the same before the deputy commissioner of police, city armed reserve, Bangalore.