BHUPINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been directed against the order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the application filed by the appellant for return of gun .12 bore to the applicant has been dismissed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that Bhupinder Singh appellant was tried in Sessions case No.15 of 2011 for offence under Section 148, 149, 307, 427 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant along with his co -accused were acquitted of the offence under Sections 148, 427, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and he was also acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. One of the co -accused in the case namely Jaimal Singh was convicted only qua for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act in regard to possession of one country made pistol allegedly recovered from him. It is submitted that as the appellant had been acquitted of the offence charged against him, the aforesaid gun taken in possession during investigation is liable to be returned to the appellant, who is a licensed holder of the weapon.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State has not disputed facts on record but submitted that as an appeal filed by Jaimal Singh is pending disposal before this Court, the appeal may be dismissed being premature. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Persual of the judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed by the learned trial Court would reveal that the appellant has been acquitted of all the charges including offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The conviction of Jaimal Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act has nothing to do with the gun in question. There is no order passed by the court below for confiscation of gun in question, when otherwise may not be permissible in law, in the circumstances.