DHIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, directing the respondents to return forthwith the revolver bearing No. 127712-V made in the U.S.A. which was seized by the police and in the alternative a prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents for payment of adequate price or compensation in case respondents are unable to return the revolver to the petitioner.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and others on 14/7/1980 on the basis of which a criminal case was instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act bearing Darbhanga Sadar P.S. Case No. 28 of 1980. In connection with that case all the arms including aforementioned revolver were seized from his house in village Sin aura by the -officer-in-charge of Darbhanga Sadar Police Station. The aforesaid case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions being S.T. No. 7 of 1982. The learned Sessions Judge disposed of the case in terms of the judgment dated 25/2/1984 and acquitted the petitioner and others holding that the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act were not proved against the petitioner and others. Subsequent to the order of acquittal, the petitioner filed an application before the sessions Court praying for release and delivery of the arms seized. The learned Sessions Court ordered for release of the arms including revolver to the petitioner as the petitioner was the owner of the revolver and it was seized from his possession. The petitionerTs case is that he has been renewing his licence regularly in respect of all the arms. Pursuant to the order of the learned Sessions Judge all the aims of the petitioner seized by the police have been delivered to him except the aforesaid revolver. Inspite of the order of the learned, Sessions Court, the revolver was not delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner again on 2/8/ 1986 made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Darbhanga for issuing direction to the authorities concerned for returning his revolver and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent a memo to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 namely, Inspector-General of Police C.I.D., Patna and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal investigation Department. Patna for return of the revolver to the petitioner without any delay. Copy of the order and memo sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate have been annexed as Annexures 4, 5.and 6 to this writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner that on 2/9/1986 the than Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (respondent No. 7) wrote a letter to the respondent No. 12 for furnishing information so that the revolver be made available for delivery to the petitioner: The Director in his letter stated that the revolver was received in the laboratory on 26/3/1981. He further stated that when the report along with exhibits were despatched the revolver could 1;lot be found. It is further stated in the writ petition that on 18/10/1986, respondent No. 7, Director Forensic Science Laboratory, lodged first information report in Shastri Nagar Police Station being Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 606 of 1986 under Section 409, IPC alleging therein that the revolver was received in the Ballistic section for examination of which the then Assistant Director was incharge. The report of examination of the arms was sent under the signature of the then Assistant Director, Ballistic section. It further appears that on 29/11/1986 the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued show cause, notice to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Patna and the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory for not delivering the revolver to the petitioner. Pursuant to that notice, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory filed show cause, wherein he admitted that the revolver was received in the laboratory, it was examined .also and the report was sent, but unfortunately the same is not being traced out. It further appears that on 27/4/1992, the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory wrote to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Patna stating therein that three persons, namely the then Assistant Director, Ballistic Section, Forensic Science and two technical officers attached to it are responsible for the loss of the revolver. In the writ application the petitioner has referred several correspondence made by and between the respondents shifting responsibility from one person to another person but the facts remain that the revolver was not returned to the petitioner.

(3.) Two sets of counter-affidavits have been filed, one by respondent No. 12 and another by respondent Nos. 3, 7 and 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 12, the then Technical officer, Ballistic Govt. of Bihar, it is stated that the revolver was sent for examination and report to the Forensic Science Laboratory. At the relevant time, he was continuing in the said department and thereafter, he ware lived from Forensic Science Laboratory for joining in the Commission post. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 3, 7 and 10, it is stated that they are not in any way responsible for the loss or missing of the revolver. As a matter of fact, in both the counter-affidavits, the answering respondents have tried to show that they are not in any way responsible for the loss or missing of the revolver,