A businessman has finally got back his licensed revolver 22 years after it was seized, after a court failed to order its return despite his acquittal in the case in 2007. The firearm was seized in 2004, when a Bhuleshwar-based gold and diamond trader was detained by the Crime Branch while transporting cash for business purposes.
The businessman, Mahesh Patel, a resident of Vile Parle, was intercepted along with five partners by Crime Branch Unit-2 while travelling in two cars with Rs 68 lakh in cash. The cash was seized, and all six were arrested under an FIR registered at LT Marg police station.
According to police, the group was on its way to deposit the money in a bank. Investigations later revealed that the cash belonged to their business partner, Rakesh Patel, and was neither stolen nor linked to any illegal activity. In August 2006, the Esplanade court in South Mumbai ruled that the money was legitimate and ordered its return. All six accused were acquitted in 2007.
The licensed revolver seized in 2004 and returned to its owner after 22 years of legal battle
However, while the cash was returned, the court failed to pass any order for the return of Patel’s licensed revolver, which had also been seized during the arrest. The other accused in the case were Jyotiram Dongre, Natvarbhai Patel, V K Shankaran Kochan, Murli Pille, and Chandrakant Patel. Despite repeatedly approaching the police, Patel was unable to retrieve his weapon as the case papers were reportedly untraceable.
“We were falsely arrested. We proved that the money belonged to us and were acquitted, but my licensed revolver was never returned because the court did not mention it in the order,” Patel told Sunday mid-day. “I approached the police several times, but the records could not be located,” he added.
Patel later approached advocate Sunil Pandey, who helped him initiate proceedings for the return of property. “After legal follow-up, the court finally ordered the firearm’s return earlier this month. “I am extremely happy to have my revolver back. With official permission, I got it serviced and tested. Even after 22 years, it is in good working condition,” Patel said.
He added that he had purchased the revolver in 1998 for personal safety. Advocate Pandey said the delay occurred due to serious procedural lapses. “We eventually sourced the old order copy from one of the accused. Based on that document, we applied for the return of the firearm and finally succeeded,” Pandey added.
0 Comments