Karnataka High Court
Bhimraya vs The State on 18 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1685
CRL.A No. 200059 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200059 OF 2025
(454 (Cr.PC)/500 (BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BHIMRAYA S/O YAMANAPPA AMARAGOL,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHRAHMDEVANMADU VILLAGE,
TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH,
KALKERI POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR,
Digitally signed NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
by RENUKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
500(1) OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.138/2017
PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24-09-2021 PASSED IN SC
NO.138/2017 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE CONFISCATION
OF M.O.1 AND 3 I.E. BLACK COLOUR REVOLVER AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1685
CRL.A No. 200059 of 2025
CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE M.O.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE
APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
This appeal is filed by the accused No.1 under
Section 500(1) of BNSS, 2023 seeking to set aside the
judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 in S.C.No.138/2017
passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur
insofar as it relates to M.O.1 for release.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the
complainant filed a complaint stating that the son of
accused No.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the
complainant five years ago as a hand loan. The
complainant asked accused No.1 to repay the loan. The
accused No.1 threatened the complainant and warned him
that he should not ask the amount in front of the public,
as the amount was given to his son.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1685
3. It is further stated that on 13.01.2015 around
10-00 a.m., the accused No.1 was standing in front of his
shop situated at Tippu Sultan Circle at Bramhadevanmadu
village. The complainant asked the accused No.1 to repay
the amount in front of the public. Immediately, the
accused No.1 started abusing the complainant in a filthy
language and called his sons to the spot. It is further
stated that the accused No.1 and his sons have assaulted
the complainant and the accused No.1 fired in the air by
using the revolver in order to threaten him. Hence, a
complaint came to be registered by the complainant. The
respondent/police after registering the case, conducted the
investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
4. The Trial Court after the trial, opined that the
prosecution has not made out a case and acquitted the
accused.
5. Heard Sri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1685
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant that though the case has been registered
against the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and it has been ended in
acquittal, however, the Trial Court passed an order
contrary to the provisions of law. Though the bail bonds
and surety bonds have been discharged, the Trial Court
directed for confiscation of M.O.1-revoler which is contrary
to the order of acquittal.
7. It is further submitted that the order of
confiscation of M.O.1 ought not to have been passed for
the reason that once the judgment of acquittal is passed
and the bail bonds are cancelled, the property of the
accused has to be handed over to him. However, the Trial
Court confiscated the revolver of which the accused No.1
is the licence holder. Therefore, the said revolver has to be
handed over to the custody of the accused No.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1685
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he
further submitted that as many as four cases have been
registered against the appellant. Out of four cases, two
cases are pending. He is the habitual offender. If the said
M.O.1 is released to his custody, he may use the said
weapon for any other offences. Therefore, it is not
appropriate to release the said weapon to his custody.
Making such submissions, he justified the order of
confiscation passed by the Trial Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the findings of the
Trial Court, it is noticed that, the Trial Court after
appreciating both oral and documentary evidence on
record, acquitted the accused for the offences under
Sections 307, 504 and 506 Read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
10. However, the Trial Court passed an order for
confiscation of M.O.1 which is contrary to the order of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1685
acquittal. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
the Trial Court has committed an error in passing the
confiscation order even after passing the order of
acquittal. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
the appellant has made out a case to grant the relief as
prayed for.
11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 24.09.2021
passed in S.C.No.138/2017 by the III Additional
Sessions Judge, Vijayapur insofar as it relates
to confiscation of M.O.1 is set aside.
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to release the
weapon in favour of the appellant on perusal of
the original licence with specific conditions.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:PK
