Maniram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3829 MP

                                   1
             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                      BENCH AT GWALIOR
                              CRA-82-2021
                    (Maniram Vs. State of M.P. )


Gwalior, Dated : 21/03/2022

      Shri R.V.S. Ghuraiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Nirmal Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

1. The instant appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved

by the order dated 26/11/2020 passed by Special Judge

(Dacoity), Gwalior (M.P.) in MJCR No.1121/2021, whereby the

application preferred by the appellant under Section 452 of

Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that one Crime No.89/2007

for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 364-A/179 of

IPC read with Section 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act was registered

against the appellant in which 315 bore rifle along with license

No.247/2006 of the appellant were seized. After due

investigation, challan was filed in the matter. Thereafter, trial

Court proceeded with trial and pronounced the judgment dated

26/07/2017 in S.S.T. No.23/2008, acquitting the appellant of all

the charges. Further the trial Court observed that since some of

the accused are absconding in the case, therefore, deferred itself

from passing the order in relation to seized property i.e. weapon

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-82-2021 (Maniram Vs. State of M.P. )

-315 bore rifle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after considering

the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and marshaling the evidence available on record,

appellant was acquitted by this Court by giving benefit of

doubt.

4. It is further submitted that after acquittal, appellant moved an

application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for taking his weapon

back which was seized by the prosecution. Learned Sessions

Court without considering the judgment of acquittal and the

benefits attached to it, dismissed the said application. He

further submitted that since appellant has already been

acquitted by this Court, therefore, the property seized in the

said crime is required to be returned back to the appellant.

Beside that, it is also submitted that since agriculture land of

appellant is in Dacoity affected area, therefore, said weapon is

necessary and required for life and property of the appellant.

Thus, prayed for setting aside of impugned order and allowing

of this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the

submissions and submitted that appellant has been acquitted on

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-82-2021 (Maniram Vs. State of M.P. )

the basis of benefit of doubt, therefore, it cannot be said that the

seized weapon was not used in the incident. Further, learned

trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned

order. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

order.

7. It is a case where an acquitted accused is seeking return of his

weapon (315 bore rifle) which was seized on the basis of

allegation of it being used in the crime. Although while

acquitting the appellant, the said weapon was not returned back

by the trial Court, therefore, basing upon the said acquittal

order, he is seeking return of his weapon. Earlier application

preferred by the petitioner under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. before

the trial Court was rejected on 12-07-2019 and thereafter

petitioner moved another application before the trial Court

stating therein that in earlier application certain material facts

were remained to be pleaded and argued.

8. The prayer of return of the said weapon was mainly turned

down by the trial Court (vide order dated 12-07-2019) on the

ground that since other accused in the case are absconding

therefore, weapon being subject matter of crime may be

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-82-2021 (Maniram Vs. State of M.P. )

required by the trial Court and further the acquittal Court did

not order in relation to release of weapon. Therefore, it cannot

return back 315 bore rifle. But the fact remains that appellant

has been acquitted by this Court and weapon of the appellant

cannot be kept awaiting nabbing of other accused in the present

crime, therefore, he is entitled for all the benefits attached to it.

9. The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent

Court on a lawful charge has to be seen and the person

acquitted is entitled to gain the status of pre-trial and he is also

entitled to the benefits attached to the acquittal recorded in his

favour. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and

conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to

the adjudication. Thus, judgment of acquittal is having binding

effect so far as seized property is concerned. Although

acquittal has been recorded in favour of appellant on the basis

of benefit of doubt but acquittal is acquittal and all the benefits

flow from the said acquittal has to be given to the person who

has been acquitted. Therefore, trial Court committed error in

rejecting the application preferred under Section 452 of Cr.P.C.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taking into

consideration the findings contained in the judgment of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-82-2021 (Maniram Vs. State of M.P. )

acquittal passed by the Court below, the appeal preferred by the

appellant is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial

Court is hereby set aside. Trial Court is directed to return back

the weapon -315 bore rifle along with licence No.247/2006 to

the appellant for the purpose for which it was issued to him on

furnishing an adequate security as may be ordered by the trial

Court with the condition that the same will be produced before

the Court below as and when ordered. The aforesaid release of

weapon of petitioner would be subject to production of renewal

of arm licence of petitioner.

11. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

rahul

Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cd e4dee473fe77953f5, pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4A B9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2022.03.23 18:59:11 +05'30'