PANNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner challenges the validity of an order made by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur. By this order, the Magistrate directed that all the articles excepting the gun be returned.

(2.) IT , however, appears that the Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 290 I.P.C. At the time when the Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence contemplated by Section 290, he had a fire arm with him. The Petitioner was prosecuted and was subsequently acquitted. It, however, appears that on the application made for the return of the firearm, the Magistrate directed that the firearm will not be returned to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner went in revision to the Sessions Judge. The revision was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Hence the writ.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State pointed out Section 516 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code to justify his case. This Section does not apply to a case like the present. It provides when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is produced before any Criminal Court, during any enquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial.