MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKHTIAR Singh petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302. Indian Penal Code, for the murder of one Karnail Singh vide order dated 24.2.1984, passed by Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. A.12 bore gun (Exhibit P. 3) along with its licence (Exhibit P.H) of the petitioner were taken in possession in that case. The Sessions Judge, however, by holding that since the gun has not been proved to be the weapon of offence, ordered the return of the gun and the licence. The above-referred order of conviction and sentence was set aside by the High Court on 29.11.1984.The State of Punjab did not file any appeal against acquittal of the petitioner in the Supreme Court, but Mohinder Singh complainant filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the High Court. The Supreme Court granted the special leave to appeal on 1.5. 1989 and the case was then registered as Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 1989 and notice was issued to the accused-petitioner.

(2.) MOHINDER Singh moved an application before the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhatinda praying that the petitioner be directed to deposit his gun and licence in Malkhana because his appeal against acquittal is pending in the Supreme Court. The Sessions Judge vide his order dated September 14, 1984, directed the petitioner to deposit his gun in the judicial malkhana on or before October 30, 1989.

(3.) THE main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge was not competent to review his earlier order, especially when right of appeal was available to the aggrieved party under section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the original order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda regarding the return of the gun and the licence. Thus, it is maintained that only the Supreme Court could have passed such an order while issuing notice to the accused in the above referred appeal against acquittal. Mr. J.S. Mann, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mrs. Nirmaljit Kaur, the learned counsel for the State on the other hand, maintained that in view of the pendency of the appeal against acquittal in the Supreme Court against the accused-petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge was well-justified in recalling his earlier order and directing the accused to deposit the gun in the judicial malkhana.