✦ Calcutta High Court

Sanjay Kumar Jain v. The State of West Bengal

BIBHAS RANJAN

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

The revisional application stands dismissed being

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 88. With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRR 2044 of 2022 Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam. … for the petitioner. Mr. Debabrato Chatterjee, Mr. R. Jana. .. for the State.

1.

This revisional application has been filed with a prayer for quashing the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 1009 of 2014 corresponding to Park Street Police Station Case No. 179 of 2014 under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2.

The proceeding was initiated in this case against the petitioner, who has licensed arms but he did not inform the authority at the time of shifting his residence.

3.

However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he intends to withdraw the revisional application with liberty to agitate the issue before the Learned Trial Court at the time of consideration of charge.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is also 2 present.

5.

Heard both sides.

Operative part

6.

The revisional application stands dismissed being withdrawn.

7.

Petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the issues before the Trial Court at the time of consideration of charge.

8.

With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

9.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

10.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The revisional application stands dismissed being

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 30.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments