JUDGMENT :

[Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.]

1. Instant misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision 106 of 2022 (Santosh Shukla Vs. State of U.P. ) whereby the order dated 24.02.2022 and 04.04.2022 passed by C.J.M., Aligarh in release application regarding a pistol moved by the petitioner in Crime No. 688 of 2021 under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., has been affirmed. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the impugned orders of learned C.J.M. dated 24.02.2022 and 04.04.2022 also.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a licensed owner of pistol No. RP 206261. A theft report was lodged by the petitioner at P.S. Banna Devi, District-Aligarh vide crime No. 688/21 under Section 379 I.P.C. against an unknown person, wherein he stated that on 14.11.2021 he had gone to attend a marriage ceremony along with his brothers Krishanveer Singh and friend Pushpendra Singh at Raju Angel Garden, Sarsau. During singing and dancing activities on D.J., his pistol which was kept in his waist, had been stolen by some unknown person and he could not trace out the same. The police investigated the case, during investigation the said pistol was recovered from accused Vipin s/o Rohtas by police and Section 411 of I.P.C. was added in penal sections and charge-sheet was filed against said Vipin under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. before the Court. However, during investigation police gathered some new facts regarding which another F.I.R. under Section 27/30 Arms Act was lodged against the applicant, at the instance of S.I. Ravichandrawal regarding same incident on 26.11.2021 at 11:26 hours with allegation that during investigation of case under Section 379 I.P.C., this fact surfaced on the basis of C.C.T.V. footage of the place of incident where alleged theft occured and statement of witnesses, that the informant Santosh Singh had flashed his licensed pistol while dancing on D.J. and many times he handed over the said pistol to his cousin Pushpendra during the event of dancing. This was unlawful use of fire arm, so after recovery of the pistol from accused Vipin Kumar on 23.12.2021, it was kept along with a black magazine at Malkhana of P.S. concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had moved an application for release of said pistol on basis of being its licensed owner before learned Chief Judical Magistrate in crime No. 688/2021 under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. but same was rejected by learned Magistrate on ground that the applicant had violated conditions of the license and a case under Section 30 Arms Act was registered against him and proceedings for cancellation of said license, issued to the applicant, were moved before District Magistrate which is under procedure. Another application for release of said pistol was moved by the applicant before learned C.J.M. on 16.03.2022 on ground that no offence under Section 27/30 Arms Act is made out against him and he is the informant in said criminal case registered by crime No. 688/21. He has not committed any offence by said pistol and said pistol is kept in police custody/Malkhana and only on basis of second F.I.R. registered by crime No. 717/21 under Section 30 Arms Act against applicant, his pistol is not being released. The said application was also rejected by learned C.J.M. on ground that a release application moved by the applicant was already rejected by order dated 24.02.2022. Therefore, second application for release of same pistol before this Court was not maintainable. Thus, the application was dismissed by order dated 04.04.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders of learned C.J.M., the applicant preferred a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions