BAIKUNTHA NATH MAHANTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 454, Cr. P.C. has been directed against the order dated 4.2.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T.Case No. 18 of 1985 confiscating the gun seized from the house of the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The appellant and another faced their trial before the learned Sessions Judge in the aforementioned Sessions Case for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found that the prosecution was not able to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and accordingly acquitted them of the charge. The trial Court though acquitted the accused persons, confiscated the gun seized in the aforementioned case. Being aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, the accused appellant preferred an appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1985 which was disposed of on 11.8.1995 with a direction to the trial Court to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge conducted an inquiry and examined a witness and the appellant and passed the impugned order on 4.2.1999 observing that the appellant had no valid licence to possess the gun on the date of the seizure, i.e. on 15.8.1984 since the licence was renewed till 31.12.1980 and us such he is not entitled to possess the said property. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE next question comes for consideration is whether the appellant has disowned ownership of the gun in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. In the above context, perused the said statement. It is noticed that the question put to him runs as follows :