Admittedly, the case has been registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 IPC r/w Section 25 of Arms Act, after investigation, it was altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 and 149 IPC, since during investigation, it revealed that the petitioner is having licence for possessing the gun. Since the petitioner is a Security Guard, he is needed for gun for his day-to-day avocation.
9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No. 7 of the judgment in MANU/SC/1110/2002 : CDJ 2003 SC 061 [Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat], which reads thus:
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C., should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.
3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further change of tampering with the articles."
10. Applying the said ratio to the case on hand, if this Court analyses the facts of the present case, it is clear that since the petitioner is having gun licence and he is a Security Guard by profession, he is entitled for interim custody of the gun.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
Crl. O.P. (MD.) No. 17004 of 2015
Decided On: 03.09.2015
Devendharan Vs. State
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R. Mala, J.
Citation: MANU/TN/2867/2015
