SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present petition on being aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby the application of the petitioner for release of one SBBL 12 Bore Gun, bearing No. 01273, taken in possession during investigation in case FIR No. 38/96, under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by Jubbal Police, has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant and material facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that one Riban Lal was tried for the commission of an offence or murder by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. The aforesaid gun was taken in possession by the Investigating Agency in the said FIR, being weapon of offence, as said Riban Lal was alleged to have used the said gun for committing the murder. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide judgment dated 1.7.1997 convicted and sentenced said Riban Lal. However, order regarding disposal of the gun was not passed. Riban Lal preferred Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 1997 in this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated November 4, 1999. Orders regarding disposal of the gun were not passed even in the appeal, but it was specifically held that the gun in question belonged to Sham Lal (PW -15) i.e. the petitioner, under a valid licence. After the disposal of the appeal, petitioner filed Cr. M.M.O. No. 18 of 2002,in this Court for release of the gun and a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 5.4.2002, observing that the gun in question, admittedly, belonged to the petitioner and he might approach the trial Court for appropriate relief. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner moved Cr. M.P. No. 68 -S/4 of 2002 in the Court of the Sessions Judge for release of the gun. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the premises that his Court had become functus officio and, therefore, the application before it was not maintainable. Hence this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent -State and have gone through the record.