Vinod Shanker Dave, J.
1. This application has been filed with a prayer that the gun DBBL 12 bore bearing No. 7902545 seized by the police in FIR No. 1/83 of Police Station Raghunathgarh the recovery memo of which was exhibited in Sessions Case No. 39/1983 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar, be returned to the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Ramlal Singh petitioner was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Sikar for facing trial in a case under Section 307 IPC. The aforesaid gun, was, it is alleged, used in the commission of the offence. The trial court after recording the evidence held that prosecution could not substantiate a case beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the trial court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt vide his judgment, dated January 16, 1984. No appeal against the said order of acquittal is alleged to have been filed. It is pertinent to mention here that despite the direction of the Committal Court the gun was not produced in the Court of Sessions Judge though its recovery memo was, exhibitted. The petitioner after acquittal moved an application before the court of Sessions for direction that the gun and the licence should be returned to him. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order, dated July 4, 1984, directed the return of the licence but said that since the gun has not been produced in the court and there is no mention in the judgment, the court was not competent to pass an order. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Sikar on September 6, 1984 who too rejected the same saying that the matter had already gone to the Court of Sessions, therefore, he was incompetent to do so. The petitioner again went to the court of Sessions but due to technical objections the revision petition was not pressed and this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been submitted.
3. It is very strange that the accused has been tossed from pillar to post for such a long period for delivery of the gun to which he was legitimately entitled to. Admittedly the gun was seized from the accused who is a licence holder and though it was required to be produced at trial but not so produced as an exhibit but the fact remains that the recovery memo and the licence were produced and for that purpose it was within the knowledge of the Sessions Judge that a gun has been recovered in the case. He while acquitting the accused ought to have mentioned about the recovered goods. However, since he had not mentioned anything at that time when the application was moved earlier and the Sessions Judge had passed the order about the delivery of licence he could as well direct the delivery of the gun. That not being done the accused had approached this court. Once it is held that no offence has been committed by the gun recovered, then it was obligatory to have returned it to the licence holder.
4. I accordingly accept this application and direct that the gun bearing No. 7902545 be delivered to the petitioner forthwith.