HURMAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE record of the case has been received. I have heard Sri Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused impugned order. THE Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg while passing the order dated 27th November, 1990 acquitting the accused persons, has ordered that the gun which was alleged to have been used in the case, may be confiscated after the expiry of period of limitation and be sent to the Superintendent of Police. Bharatpur. Shri Naqvi has argued that in the instant case when the petitioner has been acquitted, there was no occasion for the AddI. Sessions Judge, Deeg Lo have passed the order with regard to confiscation of the gun for sending the same to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, Shri Naqvi submitted that the petitioners, Hurmat, was the owner of this gun having a licence in his favor from the competent authority, although the licence had expired and the same had not been renewed. It is always open to the competent authority to grant fresh licence or the renewal thereof. In this view of the matter, in case the petitioner applies to the competent licensing authority for grant of licence afresh or renewal there of and in case such a licence is granted by the competent authority to the petitioner, the disputed gun may be returned to the petitioner, which had been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. THE impugned order dated 27th November, 1990 stands modified as above. This petition is decided as indicated above. THE record of the trial court be sent back immediately. Petition decided accordingly.