Judgment

SARKARIA, J. :- Appellant before us was tried by the Sessions Judge, Palghat on a charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for shooting dead with his 12-bore licensed gun, one Bhaskaran alias Vasu on April 1, 1971. On the same day after the occurrence, the appellant surrendered at Police Station Koyalmannam, along with his licensed gun which he had used in shooting the deceased.

2. At the trial, accused Madhavan set up a plea of self-defence. In the light of the evidence brought on record, the Sessions Judge accepted this plea and held that the accused was entitled to the protection of Section 96, Penal Code, and had therefore committed no offence. At the same time, without assigning any reason, he directed that "M. O. 1 gun shall be confiscated to the Government".

3. Against this direction of confiscation of the gun, Madhavan filed Criminal Revision No. 392 of 1972 in the High Court. The Revision was dismissed by a learned single Judge with these observations :

"Although the direction is not accompanied by sufficient grounds for doing so, I do not think it proper to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge ..... in an order under Section 517, Cr. P. C. the principle is that it should be returned to the person from whose custody it was seized. That of course is the general rule. I am aware that there is no other claimant for the gun in this case and the gun naturally belongs to the petitioner. But the order of confiscation is made by way of sufficient safeguard against its use again by the petitioner. I do not think it necessary to interfere with the order of the Court below."

4. Aggrieved by this order, dated November 9, 1972, of the High Court of Kerala, Madhavan has come in appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

5. The short question for decision in this case is, whether in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below were right in confiscating this licensed gun instead of restoring it to the appellant.

6. Mr. Sudhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of confiscation of the gun was illegal because it has been made arbitrarily without assigning any reason. It is emphasised that in exercising its power under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the Court has to act judicially in accordance with wellsettled principles, the most fundamental of which is that at the conclusion of the trial resulting in acquittal of the accused, the property seized from his possession must be restored to him, particularly when the property undisputedly belongs to the accused. In support of this contention, reference has been made to Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 508 and Lalluram Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Guj 268.

7. As against this, Mr. Nambiar, appearing for the State, maintains that there is no hard and fast rule, that the property seized from the accused, must on his acquittal be returned to him. The section, it is emphasised, gives the Court a very wide discretion to choose any one of the modes of disposal mentioned in the section, irrespective of whether the trial results in acquittal or conviction of the accused. In the instant case, it is argued, the Court in the exercise of that discretion decided to confiscate the gun, which is one of the modes recognised by the section. The impugned order therefore, could not be said to be without jurisdiction which would warrant interference by a revisional or appellate Court. In this connection, counsel cited Arjun Padhy v. State of Orissa AIR 1965 Orissa 198.

8. The material part of Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (which has been re-enacted as Section 452 (1) in the Code of 1973), reads as follows :

"When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property o