Karnataka High Court
Sangappa S/O Mahadev Amati vs The State Of Karanataka on 3 January, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRL.A NO.100233 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SANGAPPA S/O MAHADEV AMATI
AGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELAGALI,TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
THE STATE OF KARANATAKA
BY MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION,
R/BY THE ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN UPPER, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 454 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONFISCATION PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMKHANDI IN
SC NO.27/2019 DATED 19/06/2019 AND RELEASE THE
M.O. NO.1 PISTOL IN SC NO.27/2019 IN FAVOR OF THE
APPELLANT.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused No.1 is before this Court
seeking modification of the judgment and order dated
19/6/2019 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi in SC No.27 of 2019
and to release the material object No.1 (M.O. No.1) which
is the pistol in favour of the appellant.
2. Heard Sri.Harshwrdhan M Patil, learned counsel
for the appellant-accused and Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. A complaint was registered against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
324, 307 and 504 of IPC and U/s. 27(1)(A) and 5(1)(A) of
Arms Act. The complaint leads to registration of FIR and a
charge sheet and the trial conducted against the accused.
4. The trial Court by its order dated 19/6/2019
holds that there is no evidence placed by the prosecution
to substantiate the allegations made against the accused.
In that light the trial Judge acquitted the accused by order
dated 19/6/2019. The order reads as follows:
ORDER
The accused persons are acquitted under Sections
235(1) of the criminal procedure Code for offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 504 of IPC and U/s. 27(1)(A)
and 5(1)(A) of Arms Act.
Their bail bounds stands canceled and M.O.1 and 2
ordered to be confiscated to state and M.O.3 to 5 are
ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal period.
(emphasis added)
5. In terms of the afore extracted order of the
acquittal the trial Court directs confiscation of the M.O.
No.1 and 2 to the State. M.O.No.1 is the pistol. The
allegation against the petitioner was concerning usage of
the said pistol. This having not proved in its entirety
aforesaid order of confiscation of M.O.1 was beyond the
order that is passed. It would have been all together
different circumstance if the Court had assigned separate
reasons for passing of an order of confiscation of the pistol.
6. A perusal at the order impugned would in
unmistakable terms indicates lack of reasons as a
foundation for directing confiscation of M.O.1.
7. The further circumstance is that the appellant is
in possession of a valid licence to hold the pistol. The said
licence is in subsistence even as on date as it is valid upto
6/8/2023. The Court having held that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt against the accused could not have
directed confiscation of the pistol that too in the light of a
valid licence and its subsistence even as on date. Therefore
that finding of the trial court insofar as it concerns M.O.1
warrants appropriate interference. For the aforesaid
reasons the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The order dated 19/6/2019 passed in SC
No.27 of 2019 by the I Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at
Jamakhandi insofar as it pertains to
material object No.1 is quashed.
iii) The M.O.No.1 shall be returned to the
appellant on appropriate verification of the
documents and identification of the
appellant.
SD
JUDGE
Vb/-
