The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 451 Cr. P.C., the custody of the gun can be given to the petitioner if there is no possibility of confiscation and the petitioner is confirmed to be the licensed owner.

1. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. being aggrieved against the order Dated July 25, 1991 of Chief Judicial Magistrate; Sikar in Criminal Case No. 44/89. In brief, the necessary facts are that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner at police station Kotwali, Sikar under Section 336 and 506/34 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act. During investigation the police had seized one 12 Bore Gun from the possession of the petitioner,

2. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 336 & 506/34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. 'therefore, at the time of framing charges, the petitioner was discharged for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act but was charged for the offences under Section 336 & 506/34 IPC only vide order Dated June 21, 1989. A revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Sikar vide judgment dated September 21, 1991.

3. Before the Trial Magistrate, the petitioner also moved an application under Section 451 Cr, P.C. for the custody of the gun which was recovered from his possession. This application was dismissed by the learned judge on July 25, 1991. The ground on which the prayer of the petitioner was declined is that against the order of discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, a revision was pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Sikar.

4. Now, it is not disputed before me that the petitioner stands discharged for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is also not disputed before me that the petitioner is the licenced owner of the gun which was seized from his possession. After the discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, there is no possibility of the confiscation of the gun and it has to be returned ultimately to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the identification of the gun. In .the circumstances, I am of the confirmed 'view that there is no purpose in keeping the gun in the custody of the court. There is no other claimant of the said gun except the petitioner, as such, the gun should be given in his custody under Section 451 Cr. P.C.

5. It is, therefore, directed that the 12 bore gun No. P L 8925 be given in the custody of the petitioner on Superdgi under Section 451 Cr. P.C. on the following conditions :

1. That the. petitioner shall furnish a Superdgi-Nama in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Magistrate.

2. That the aforesaid gun shall be produced by him in the trial court or any other court as and when called upon to produce the same :

3. That he will not part with or otherwise transfer the said gun to any person without the prior permission of the trial court. The petition is allowed as indicated above.
Petition Allowed.

*******