SRI DAYANANDA G N v. THE STATE-THROUGH THE SUB

This revision petition is filed calling in question the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, in Crime No. 468/2015, wherein the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.PC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner of the N.P. Revolver (9.32 mm) SAF Kanpur, Bharath 2013-T-1954 along with 5 Zinda Bullets, which was seized by Belthangady Police in Crime No.468/2015 and subjected to PF No.215/2015.

4. The petitioner has approached the trial Court seeking for interim custody of the said revolver on various grounds. The trial Court after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the petitioner has rejected the said application on the ground that the revolver has been sent to FSL; the result has not been received; the petitioner has used the said revolver for the purpose of commission of offences under various provisions of IPC and Arms Act; the said revolver is required for identification during the course of trial and also stating that if the revolver is released in favour of the petitioner, he may change the colour of the same and also he may use it for commission of the offence once again.

5. The learned HCGP submitted that, the revolver sent to FSL is now returned along with a report.

6. It is the fundamental basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that, if any property is seized in connection with any case, if the said property is subjected to decay, then it will become useless by the time of conclusion of the trial. Normally the said property should be released in favour of a person, who can take care of the said property as a lawful custodian of the property. The interim custody will be given to the person, who is competent and who is entitled for such custody only with an intention that, the property will be maintained during the course of the trial and it will be produced as and when required either for the purpose of identification or for the purpose of confiscation at the conclusion of the trial.

6. In this background, if it is seen that the revolver is a property, it should be oiled often and should be taken care of in order to keep the said property intact ill the conclusion of the trial. If it is left with the police or the court, such care cannot be taken. For instance, at the end of the trial, if the court comes to the conclusion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner, then the property has to be released in favour of the petitioner/accused and by that time, if the revolver becomes useless, then the State will be responsible to compensate the petitioner. Therefore, for all these reasons, it is just, necessary and appropriate to return the revolver to the owner with proper condition. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the court, the crime report relied upon by the trial Court can be meted-out by means of imposing stringent conditions.

7. On the said grounds, no interim custody can be refused. Hence, I prefer to allow the revision petition and order for release of the property (revolver in question) to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER The revision petition is allowed. The order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady in connection with Crime No.468/2015, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.PC., is hereby allowed. The N.P. Revolver (0.32) SAF Kanpur, Bharath 2013-T1954, is hereby ordered to be returned to the interim custody of the petitioner pending disposal of the case before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, on the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall execute an Indemnity Bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like- sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; ii) Before releasing the said revolver, the photographs of the same have to be taken at the cost of the petitioner and to be placed in the case records; iii) The petitioner shall not alienate the said revolver or change its colour or modify the contents of the same without prior permission of the trial court; iv) The petitioner shall not use the revolver in question without proper licence from the competent authority, with an undertaking that he shall not use the revolver for committing any offence in future;

v) The petitioner shall produce the said revolver as and when required by the trial Court for the purpose of identification or for the purpose of confiscation, at the time of conclusion of the trial. Sd/- JUDGE KGR*