Skip to content


Kartika Chandra Das and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1987CriLJ136
AppellantKartika Chandra Das and anr.
RespondentState of Orissa and ors.
Excerpt:
..... held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - behere learned additional standing counsel and on going through the order of the learned sessions judge, i find that the reasons given by the learned sessions judge in para 4 of the impugned order are not good grounds for refusing the prayer of the petitioners for release of the guns.orderb.n. misra, j.1. this revision is directed against the order dt. 27-10-1984 passed by the learned sessions judge, puri in criminal revision no. 145 of 1984.2. the facts may be briefly stated. the two petitioners are accused of offences under sections 31, 32, 51 and 52 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and under section 27 of the arms act, 1959 and facing trial in 2(b) c.c. no. 2 of j984 pending in the file of the learned s.d.j.m., bhubaneswar. according to the prosecution, the two petitioners were found inside the nandankanan sanctuary area with two guns on the night of 29-4-84. the two guns carried by them were seized from them. thereafter prosecution report was filed against them and they were summoned to stand trial. in the trial court the petitioners filed an application.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B.N. Misra, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 27-10-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 1984.

2. The facts may be briefly stated. The two petitioners are accused of offences Under Sections 31, 32, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and facing trial in 2(b) C.C. No. 2 of J984 pending in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. According to the prosecution, the two petitioners were found inside the Nandankanan sanctuary area with two guns on the night of 29-4-84. The two guns carried by them were seized from them. Thereafter prosecution report was filed against them and they were summoned to stand trial. In the trial Court the petitioners filed an application for release of the guns under their zima-name. The learned Magistrate directed release of the guns in favour of the petitioners upon execution of the bonds by each one of them and subject to the conditions noted in the penultimate paragraph of the order dt. 20-6-84. Thereafter, the present opposite party No. 1 preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Puri challenging the order of release passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dt. 27-10-84 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing release of the guns. The petitioners challenge the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge in this revision.

3. Upon hearing Mr. A. K. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. J. R. Behere learned Additional Standing Counsel and on going through the order of the learned Sessions Judge, I find that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in para 4 of the impugned order are not good grounds for refusing the prayer of the petitioners for release of the guns. Admittedly the petitioners hold valid licenses for their guns. The learned Magistrate had properly considered the matter and had attached conditions for release which, in my opinion, were adequate to prevent any tampering of evidence by the petitioners with regard to the seized guns. Even if the petitioners are given interim custody of the guns pending trial, the guns would remain liable to be confiscated to the State under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and/or the Arms Act, 1959, if ultimately they are found guilty and are convicted for offences under the said Acts. Accordingly, on consideration I agree with the reasons and the conclusion of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have exercised his judicial discretion in a proper manner while dealing with the present case.

4. In the result, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order dt. 20-6-84 passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. All the directions and conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate for release of the two guns in favour of the petitioners shall be strictly complied with.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //