Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ballu @ Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.19559/2017
(Ballu @ Jitendra Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated : 06.03.2019
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Soni, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22.8.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Gwalior in Case No.RDM/9-5/81/16.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the licensed gun of the petitioner was seized by the police in Crime No.194/2012 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior. A FIR was lodged by the complainant Damodar Bhargava on 13.5.2012 alleging that the co-accused Rajkumar Gurjar along with his companions who were armed with guns were unauthorizedly sitting in his house and were consuming liquor. When it was objected by the complainant, then Rajkumar Gurjar started abusing him and when it was objected by him, then the complainant was beaten by Rajkumar Gurjar and his colleagues. Gunshots were fired in air. With the help of general public, 315 bore gun with an empty cartridge was snatched from the miscreants. The petitioner was prosecuted in the said case. However, it appears that the petitioner did not claim 315 bore gun which was snatched by the complainant from the accused. It appears that before the Trial Court the petitioner 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.19559/2017 (Ballu @ Jitendra Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) maintained the silence about the ownership of the gun. Accordingly, S.T.No.305/2013 was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.3 (Electricity Act), Gwalior and the petitioner was also acquitted. However, in paragraph 27, the following important observations were made:-
^^27- tCr'kqnk 315 cksj dh jk;Qy ds Lokeh dk Hkh vuqla/kku ds nkSjku irk ugh py ldk gS vkSj bl jk;Qy dks fdlh Hkh vfHk;qDr us viuk gksuk Dyse ugha fd;k gSA vr% tCr'kqnk 315 cksj jk;Qy,d thfor dkjrwl vkSj rhu [kkyh [kks[ks vafre ,oa mfpr O;;u gsrq ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh Xokfy;j dks Hksts tkosaA^^ Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. before the said Court. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 20.6.2016 by observing as under:-
^^Li"V gS fd iwoZ esa fopkj.k ds nkSjku vkosnd cYyw mQZ ftrsUnz flag us jk;Qy ds ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nhA blls izdj.k ds fujkdj.k rd ;g Kkr ugha gks ldk gS fd izdj.k esa tCr'kqnk jk;Qy fdldh gSA blls n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 452 ds vk/khu mijksDrkuqlkj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl vkns'k esa dksbZ Qsj&cny ;k vkns'k dk iqujkZoyksdu fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vkosnd bl lac/a k esa ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh ds le{k leqfpr dk;Zokgh dj ldrk gSA 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.19559/2017 (Ballu @ Jitendra Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) blh funsZ'k ds lkFk vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ifj.kke ntZ dj i=koyh nkf[ky fjdkMZ gksA^^ It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate, Gwalior for return of the gun. Although, the Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior had opined in favour of the petitioner but still the District Magistrate by impugned order dated 22.8.2017 passed in Case No. Q/RDM/9-5/81/16 has refused to return the licensed gun to the petitioner on the basis of the observations made by the Trial Court. It is submitted by the petitioner that in fact the petitioner is the owner of the gun which was snatched by the complainant at the time of incident. However, the counsel for the petitioner could not reply as to why the ownership of the said gun was not admitted by the petitioner in the Trial Court. The petitioner had maintained silence for the obvious reasons that otherwise his presence on the spot could have been presumed as his gun was found on the spot. Thus, it appears that the petitioner did not admit his ownership of the gun before the Trial Court. Later on, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for return of the gun which has also been rejected by the Trial Court. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 20.6.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge No.3, (Electricity Act), Gwalior. Thus the order passed by the Trial Court has attained the finality. 4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.19559/2017 (Ballu @ Jitendra Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the District Magistrate, Gwalior did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for return of the gun because he was not competent to take a contrary view of the findings recorded by the Trial Court as only the Trial Court was competent to pass an order for disposal of the property seized in the criminal case. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2019.03.08 10:09:02
+05'30'