KARTIKA CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 27.10.1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 1984.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated. The two petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 31, 32, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and facing trial in 2(b) C.C. No. 2 of 1984 pending in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. According to the prosecution, the two petitioners were found inside the Nandankanan sanctuary area with two guns on the night of 29 -4 -84. The two guns carried by them were seized from them. Thereafter prosecution report was filed against them and they were summoned to stand trial. In the trial Court the petitioners filed an application for release of the guns under their zima -name. The learned Magistrate directed release of the guns in favour of the petitioners upon execution of the bonds by each one of them and subject to the conditions noted in the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 20.6.84. Thereafter, the present opposite party No. 1 preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Puri challenging the order of release passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 27.10.84 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing release of the guns. The petitioners challenge the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge in this revision.

(3.) UPON hearing Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. J.R. Behere learned Additional Standing Counsel and on going through the order of the learned Sessions Judge, I find that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in para 4 of the impugned order are not good grounds for refusing the prayer of the petitioners for release of the guns. Admittedly the petitioners hold valid licenses for their guns. The learned Magistrate had properly considered the matter and had attached conditions for release which, in my opinion, were adequate to prevent any tampering of evidence by the petitioners with regard to the seized guns. Even if the petitioners are given interim custody of the guns pending trial, the guns would remain liable to be confiscated to the State under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and/or the Arms Act, 1959, if ultimately they are found guilty and are convicted for offences under the said Acts. Accordingly, on consideration I agree with the reasons and the conclusion of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have exercised his judicial discretion in a proper manner while dealing with the present case.