Bombay High Court

SIDDESHWAR ALIAS SIDDHU MURLIDHAR KEKANversusTHE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: MEHROZ K PATHAN

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as there is an alternate statutory remedy under Section 454 of the Cr.P.C., and the petitioner must pursue that remedy while the Collector decides the licence renewal.

Summary

The petitioner, Siddheshwar alias Siddhu Murlidhar Kekan, sought the return of a revolver seized in connection with Crime No.25/2022, alleging that his firearms licence, though expired in 2021, was pending renewal before the Collector, Jalna. The trial court, exercising powers under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C., ordered confiscation of the weapon and declined to hand it over. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging that order, while the State argued that an appeal under Section 454 Cr.P.C. was the proper remedy. The High Court examined the existence of an alternate statutory remedy and noted that the licence renewal application was still pending. It held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the available appeal, dismissed the petition, and directed the Collector to decide the renewal application within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 454 and to seek condonation of any delay under the Limitation Act.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition challenging a confiscation order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when an appeal under Section 454 Cr.P.C. is available.
Whether the pending renewal of a firearms licence affects the legality of the confiscation order.
Whether the High Court can set aside the trial court's order without the petitioner first filing an appeal under Section 454 Cr.P.C.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 452, 454
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 323, 34, 354, 354-B, 452, 504
Limitation Act — s. 14

Subjects

writ petition
firearm confiscation
licence renewal
Section 452 CrPC
Section 454 CrPC
alternative remedy
Indian Arms Act
Limitation Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4778

1 68.Cri.WP-1422-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1422 OF 2025

SIDDESHWAR ALIAS SIDDHU MURLIDHAR KEKAN
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
…
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Munde Sambhaji G
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. N.S. Tekale
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned APP for the State. By consent of the parties, the petition is
heard for final disposal.

2. The basic prayer in the Petition is to hand over the revolver
seized from the Petitioner in Crime No.25/2022, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 354, 354-B, 452, 323, 504
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4
read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act, by setting aside the impugned
order.

3. At the outset, the learned APP informs that the application
for renewal of the licence filed by the Petitioner is pending
consideration before Respondent No.1/Collector, Jalna. The learned
APP further informs that the hearing of the matter is scheduled for
tomorrow and that Respondent No.1 is likely to take a decision in
2 68.Cri.WP-1422-2025.doc

due course.
. The learned APP objects to the maintainability of the Writ
Petition in view of the alternate remedy of Appeal under Section 454
against the order passed while exercising powers under Section 452
of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the Petition may be dismissed
on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.

4. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submits that despite the Petitioner having moved an application in
the year 2022 for renewal of the licence, which had expired in the
year 2021, the Collector, Jalna has failed to decide the said
application. The learned trial Court has refused to exercise powers
under Section 452 to hand over the revolver to the present Petitioner
and has instead directed confiscation of the weapon solely on the
ground that the licence issued in the name of the Petitioner stood
expired in the year 2021.

5. I have gone through the impugned order dated 20.08.2025.
A perusal of the said order shows that the licence in the name of the
Petitioner stood expired on 31.12.2021. The order dated 20.08.2025
is passed exercising powers under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. after the FIR
against accused is quashed in exercise of powers under Section 452
of Cr.P.C. The impugned order is an appealable order under Section
454 of the Cr.P.C., and thus an appeal before the learned Sessions
Judge ought to have been filed by the Petitioner herein. Taking into
consideration the observations of the Court as well as the statement
3 68.Cri.WP-1422-2025.doc

made by the learned APP, upon instructions, that the application for
renewal is pending hearing before the competent authority, i.e., the
Collector, Jalna, the present Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty
and directions as under. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Respondent No.1/Collector, Jalna shall decide the
application for renewal filed by the Petitioner within a period of three
weeks from today.

(ii) The Petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order
passed by the Respondent No.1/Collector by taking appropriate steps
in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file an
appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. The period spent in filing of the
petition and pursuing the proceedings before the Collector, Jalna on
the renewal application shall be considered for condoning the delay
in filing appeal under Section 454 Cr.P.C., if any by applying Section
14 of the Limitation Act.

(iii) With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed in view of alternate statutory remedy under Section 454 of
Cr.P.C.

(iv) The learned APP shall communicate this order immediately
to the Collector, Jalna.

MEHROZ K. PATHAN
JUDGE
NAJEEB..

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…