IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200059 OF 2025 (454 (Cr.PC)/500 (BNSS))

BETWEEN:

BHIMRAYA S/O YAMANAPPA AMARAGOL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BHRAHMDEVANMADU VILLAGE, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586125.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH, KALKERI POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

500(1) OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.138/2017 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24-09-2021 PASSED IN SC NO.138/2017 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE CONFISCATION OF M.O.1 AND 3 I.E. BLACK COLOUR REVOLVER AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE M.O.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

This appeal is filed by the accused No.1 under Section 500(1) of BNSS, 2023 seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 in S.C.No.138/2017 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur insofar as it relates to M.O.1 for release.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant filed a complaint stating that the son of accused No.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant five years ago as a hand loan. The complainant asked accused No.1 to repay the loan. The accused No.1 threatened the complainant and warned him that he should not ask the amount in front of the public, as the amount was given to his son.

3. It is further stated that on 13.01.2015 around

10-00 a.m., the accused No.1 was standing in front of his shop situated at Tippu Sultan Circle at Bramhadevanmadu village. The complainant asked the accused No.1 to repay the amount in front of the public. Immediately, the accused No.1 started abusing the complainant in a filthy language and called his sons to the spot. It is further stated that the accused No.1 and his sons have assaulted the complainant and the accused No.1 fired in the air by using the revolver in order to threaten him. Hence, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant. The respondent/police after registering the case, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

4. The Trial Court after the trial, opined that the prosecution has not made out a case and acquitted the accused.

5. Heard Sri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that though the case has been registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and it has been ended in acquittal, however, the Trial Court passed an order contrary to the provisions of law. Though the bail bonds and surety bonds have been discharged, the Trial Court directed for confiscation of M.O.1-revoler which is contrary to the order of acquittal.

7. It is further submitted that the order of confiscation of M.O.1 ought not to have been passed for the reason that once the judgment of acquittal is passed and the bail bonds are cancelled, the property of the accused has to be handed over to him. However, the Trial Court confiscated the revolver of which the accused No.1 is the licence holder. Therefore, the said revolver has to be handed over to the custody of the accused No.1.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that as many as four cases have been registered against the appellant. Out of four cases, two