MATADIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED public prosecutor submits that State has not filed any appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2005 passed by V ADJ, Fast Track Court, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2004 and no revision is pending against impugned judgment.

(2.) WITH the consent of both the parties, heard finally at motion stage.

(3.) ON perusal of impugned judgment, it is clear that appellant Matadin has been charged for offence under section 148/307/149 of IPC. Upendra Singh has been charged under section 148/307 of IPC and under section 25 (1) (kha) and (ka) and section 27 of the Arms Act. Mouser 306 Bore Model No. 1917 has been seized from accused Upendra Singh Tomar on 4.6.2004. Note on seizure memo shows that appellant Matadin is licensee of seized gun. Matadin, Upendra Singh Tomar and other co -accused were tried for the charges levelled against them and were acquitted. Learned trial Court confiscated seized mouser gun holding that Upendra Singh Tomar was not having valid licence for possession of mouser gun. Learned trial Court did not consider that Matadin had valid licence of seized gun and his licence was suspended by District Magistrate, Morena due to pendency of sessions trial in which, on 29.11.2005, he was acquitted. Matadin is owner of the seized gun and he is entitled to get back seized mouser gun. Learned trial Court committed illegality in confiscating mouser gun seized from Upendra Singh Tomar.