The court held that a person facing trial under Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors with multiple other pending cases cannot be safely entrusted with a weapon
Masood’s lawyer argued that he was the licensed owner of the weapon, that the licence expired on Feb 14, 2010, and that the pistol had no connection with the alleged offence.
The defence also said no further investigation was required in relation to the weapon and that it was lying unattended at the police station, where it could suffer wear and tear. Police had seized the pistol during the investigation.
Mumbai: Holding that a person facing trial under Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act with multiple other pending cases cannot be safely entrusted with a weapon, a special court rejected the plea of an accused in a 2007 multi-crore investment fraud case seeking the return of a seized pistol. Taking note of the long delay in seeking its return, the judge said the accused in the City Limouzines fraud case, Sayed Masood, knew that the licence of the .32 pistol had expired in 2010 but he made no application to the court or the investigating agency for its return or renewal.
The prosecution said the pistol had been seized from Masood along with live cartridges. It said information received during the investigation showed that its licence had not been renewed and if it were to be returned, Masood could misuse it or commit another offence. It said whether the weapon was connected with the proceeds of crime would be examined during the trial.
“The accused has not shown any reason as to how and why he has the licence to possess the firearm. When the accused is facing trial under MPID Act, it is seen that there are many other cases against him. In this context, it is not fair to give any weapon in the custody of the accused. The court noted that the weapon had been seized under a panchnama from Masood’s house and that he himself had handed it over to the probe agency.