RAJESH HARMANBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged an order dated 11.9.09 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand as confirmed by the order dated 10th December 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Anand.

(2.) Issue pertains to giving interim custody of muddamal article gun seized by the police authorities allegedly used for commission of offence disclosed in complaint at Annexure A.

(3.) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find that admittedly in the complaint, name of the petitioner was not mentioned. The complainant, however, stated that a mob of about 20 persons including the 8 named accused had threatened and assaulted the complainant and others without causing any injury to anyone. The mob was armed with sticks, dharia, etc. Reference to the petitioner or anyone else with gun at that time was not there. Admittedly, however, further statement of the complainant was recorded. In the said further statement as well as in the statement of one Gahanshambhai, it is revealed that the petitioner was also present carrying a gun. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has licence to carry weapon. He is stated to be a security guard employed by a security agency. It is stated that the weapon in question is valued at about Rs.1 lakh.