BAIKUNTHNATH MOHANTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') challenge is to the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar at the conclusion of trial for confiscation of the gun which was seized during investigation.

(2.) Appellant Baikunthnath Mohanta (hereinafter also referred to as 'the accused') along with one Ganeswar Mahanta, faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') on the allegation that they attempted to commit murder of one Dambarudhar Patra. Learned Sessions Judge found that the materials were inadequate to fasten culpability on the accused persons. Accordingly he directed their acquittal, but observed that there was an allegation against the present appellant for having misused his gun though not proved, and he felt that the licensing authority may take proper steps for cancellation of licence and the gun is to be confiscated and so directed, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Undisputedly, learned Sessions Judge has exercised power under Section 452 of the Code. Mr. B. P. Ray appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no material to link the appellant with the alleged offence, and in view of his acquittal, he was entitled to restoration of the gun seized. With reference to seizure list (Ext. 4) and licence (Ext. 3), he submitted that the gun in question was seized from the appellant along with licence. Therefore, the gun should have been returned to the petitioner. Mrs. S. Jena appearing for the State, on the other hand with reference to the question no. 15 put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code, submitted that the appellant himself denied the ownership of the gun and, therefore, direction given by the learned Judge is in order.