Allahabad High Court
Tejveer vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83913
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3952 of 2023
Applicant :- Tejveer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Chandraul, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned order dated 21.09.2022 passed by A.C.J.M.-Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Case Crime No.164 of 2021, under section 3/30 Arms Act, Police Station-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an ex-army personnel, who had a licensee rifle and on one of the family events, he has done "celebratory firing" regarding which an FIR was lodged against him on 26.03.2021. In the aforesaid case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail, however, his rifle was seized. The applicant moved an application before the concerned trial court for release of his rifle, which has been rejected vide order dated 21.09.2022, which is under challenge in this application. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (2) AIC 964 (S.C.). He further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Virendra Jaiswal vs. State of U.P., 2012 (2) ACR 2279 has taken a similar stand, where a weapon used for celebratory firing was released.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. contends that it is not advisable that the weapon be released in favour of the applicant as he might again indulge into such kind of activity. He further submits that he is not aware about the validity of the licence of the applicant.
5. In an identical matter, in Virendra Jaiswal's case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) has held as follows:
"6. I have gone through the record as well as the impugned orders. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223: AIR 2003 SC 638 has clearly held that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes:- (i) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused,(ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody, (iii) If the proper panchnama before handing over article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial, if necessary, (iv) This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. The Apex Court has clearly held that appropriate orders should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period would only result in decay of the article. The court should ensure that the article will be produced if and when required by taking bond, guarantee or security.
In the aforesaid judgment it has also been held that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month.
7. Similar view has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court as well. Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. State of U.P., 2004, A.C.C. (48), 605. In the case of Tulsi Rajak Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004, Criminal Law Journal, 2450, it was held that truck lying in the police station for more than one year resulted in heavy loss of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the High Court permitted to release the vehicle. In Gurnam Singh and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47) A.C.C., 1086, it was held that what so ever the situation be, there is no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station or court campus for a long period, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.
8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the orders of the courts below can not be left to stand. No good reason has been assigned for refusing the prayer for release of the said revolver. Accordingly, the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Court No. 24, Gorakhpur and the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur are quashed. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to release the said revolver in favour of the applicant within a period of three weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him after taking adequate guarantee/ security of the said revolver from the applicant and also an undertaking that the revolver will not be disposed of during pendency of the criminal proceedings."
6. In view of the judgment passed by this Court as well as judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred above, I am of the view that there is no point in keeping the weapon of the applicant in custody. As such, it is hereby directed that, in case the applicant has valid licence of the weapon, the weapon shall be released in his favour after complying with the required formalities as per law. However, it is further directed that the applicant shall not indulge in such kind of activities in the future, otherwise, it will be open for the concerned authority to cancel his licence and seize the weapon.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Manish Himwan
