Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.—The present petition has been filed assailing the validity of the twin impugned orders; the first one being the order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the C.J.M.Kaushambi and the second one being the order dated 11.6.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2012 whereby it upheld the order passed by the C.J.M. refusing to release the seized weapon of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A of the State.

It has been submitted that the petitioner’s DBBL gun No. 10310-C/Y-03 has been seized by the police in connection with case crime No. 162 of 2011, relating to police Station Saray Akil, district Kaushambi. Apart from his weapon another DBBL gun belonging to another co-accused in connection with the same crime number was also seized by the police. Both the accused alongwith certain others have been charge-sheeted by the police under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. And 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act.

3. It is being urged that vide order dated 15.6.2011 the C.J.M. Kaushambi thought it proper to release the DBBL gun belonging to co-accused, Israr Ahmad which was found to be a licenced weapon. The learned C.J.M. also took into the account the fact that no proceedings for cancellation of the weapon were pending. The petitioner has annexed a report of Police Station Saray Akil, Kaushambi as Annexure 7 to the writ petition which makes it clear that even the present DBBL gun in question belonging to petitioner Irshad Ahmad is not the subject-matter of any licence cancellation proceeding. It has been averred in para 3 of the writ petition that the DBBL gun belonging to the petitioner under licence No. 10560 has also been renewed till 28.2.2014 by the licencing authority. The petitioner had sought the release of his gun but the C.J.M. refused to release the same and the revisional Court confirmed the C.J.M’s order. The main reason given by both the lower Courts for refusing to release the gun seems to be that the DBBL gun belonging to the petitioner has been found by the forensic expert to have been used in some incident as some remains of led have been found in the barrel of gun. The revisional Court has also considered the fact that the gun in question is a case property.

4. I have perused the record and have heard both sides.

Some case law cited by the petitioner in the lower revisional Court was distinguished and was found not applicable in the present case by the Court concerned. When a seized article should be released in favour of its owner and when not is a question which cannot be resolved through any straight jacketed cut and dried formula. It all depends upon the circumstances of the case in question. What is the nature of the article sought to be released? Whether it is perishable or imperishable? Whether its continuation as a seized property is going to effect some very important constitutional rights of its owner? Whether the deprivation of the right to use one’s own property or article has been done by adopting a proper prescribed procedure of law? What are criminal antecedents of the user of the article? What is the degree of likelihood of its misuse again in future? What is the history of the misuse of the article? Whether there is any allegation of any repeated misuse of the seized article or not? Whether its release is fraught with a reasonable possibility of its further misuse? Whether the release of the property will adversely effect the right of investigating agency to investigate and collect the evidence regarding the same? Whether its release is capable to adversely effect the prosecution in a prejudicial manner? All these and many more may be the relevant considerations to be looked into by the Courts concerned while deciding the question of release of the seized article. There cannot be any exhaustive list to the considerations mentioned above and they