A licensed firearm should be released if the owner has clean antecedents, despite allegations against associated individuals, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna in connection with Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2021, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the petitioner’s revision application for release of arms and also to quash the order dated 07.11.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kotwali (Patna) P.S. Case No. 148 of 2018, G.R. No. 1623/2018, whereby learned Magistrate has been pleased to reject the petitioner’s application for release of fire-arm and ammunition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R. being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 148 of 2018 came to be instituted wherein it was alleged that on 11.03.2018 at about 14.40 Hours, while the informant was checking vehicles with other police personnel, when one white color Fortuner was coming from the side of the Planetarium and was going towards Bailey Road, Patna through Income Tax side in full speed. It is next alleged that on suspicion, the police personnel tried to stop the vehicle, but the vehicle sped away, accordingly the higher officials were informed and the police started chasing the vehicle and ultimately it was stopped near Bihar Museum and during checking of the vehicle, five persons were found inside the vehicle carrying rifle, further in front of two witnesses, the vehicle was searched and from the possession of the petitioner a rifle bearing number 374AB1403848 with 10 live cartridges was recovered, It is further alleged that on query regarding the seized weapon and cartridges, co-accused Md. Khalid disclosed that they are involved in purchase and sale of land with the help of hired gunmen by creating fear and they used to indulge in sale and purchase of land and they were going to Janipur, Chirora for purchasing land for which the four accused with arms were hired. It is next alleged that on demand, the accused persons, including the petitioner, were not able to produce original valid license. It is next alleged that Md. Khalid and Santosh Kumar were criminals having criminal antecedents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the informant himself has stated that on demand, the license with respect to the weapons was not produced, which amply demonstrates that had the petitioner produced the license at the time when it was asked, perhaps the weapon would not have been seized. It is next submitted that petitioner is person with clean antecedent and they had filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for getting the arms released under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., but the same was rejected, accordingly, the petitioner moved in revision and the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna remanded the matter back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to adjudicate the same afresh, but, thereafter, also after seeking a report from the police, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate again rejected the application against which the present criminal revision was filed which was also rejected mechanically. Learned counsel next submits that from perusal of the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, it would manifest that the learned court did not appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is having valid lic