Point of Law
If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amar Nath Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the revisionist, is taken on record.

3. The instant criminal revision is preferred challenging the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 128 of 2019 (State Vs. Pankaj Gautam), rejecting the release application dated 27.08.2019 under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C filed by revisionist for releasing his firearm Rifle No. 10A-B 05878-315 N.P. Bore and three life cartridges and Pistol No. R.P. 213879-32 Bore and four life cartridges, in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2019, under sections 286/386/392/504/411 I.P.C, Police Station Atarra, District Banda.

4. The factual matrix of the case shows that on 06.06.2019 Sheelman (informant) son of Ayodhya Prasad, driver of truck no. U.P.-44-AT 3202, was driving truck loaded with sand from Lahotera Ghat P.S. Naraini to Sultanpur and, near the Atarra Galla Mandi, the tyre of truck was busted/flat tyred. While cleaner of truck, Ravi, was replacing the busted tyre, at about 10:30 p.m. one white Maruti Car bearing registration no. U.P.-78-B 1059 reached there and two persons (accused) stepped out from the car, one of them had a pistol in his hand and the other person, wearing white kurta, had a rifle. Both used abusive language against mother and sister of the informant on the pretext that he had over loaded the truck with sand. At the relevant point of time, another truck bearing registration no. U.P.-44-AT-3201 driven by Mahesh Kashyap, who was accompanied with the informant, also reached there. Accused persons had demanded money from both drivers. While they asked for receipt of money, accused persons fired from the rifle and snatched Rs. 1,500/- each from both the drivers.

5. With respect to the aforesaid incident, an F.I.R was lodged by driver Sheelman on 07.06.2019 at about 3:41 a.m. registered as case crime no. 128 of 2019, under sections 286/386/392/504 IPC, Police Station Atarra, District Banda.

6. As per prosecution case, revisionist along with co-accused were arrested on 07.06.2019 at about 4:30 p.m; firearms and cartridges were recovered from them. Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet dated 11.06.2019 against both the accused persons under sections 286, 386, 392, 504 and 411 IPC.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that alleged incident took place on 06.06.2019 at about 10:30 p.m and the F.I.R was lodged on 07.06.2019 at 3:53 a.m whereas the arrest and recovery have been shown at about 4:30 a.m which shows the probability of false case in which revisionist has illegally been implicated. Revisionist is an army personnel and, original license holder and, has never been convicted in any criminal case. There is no criminal history of revisionist and the antecedents of the revisionist are through-out good. There is no previous complaint with respect to the misuse of firearms. Even, till date, to the best of his knowledge, no cancellation proceeding has been initiated with respect to the firearms in question which was renewed from time to time. It is further submitted that revisionist has got the licenses of firearms to protect the property and life of his family members. The firearms and cartridges in question are kept in maalkhana of concerned police station and there is every likelihood of their destruction in absence of proper maintenance, which will cause irreparable loss to the revisionist. It is also submitted that no identification parade has been conducted to ascertain the involvement of revisionist in the commission of crime.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A has submitted that the revisionist has rightly been prosecuted in the present matter and the impugned order has rightly been passed on the basis of police report. I