(1.) Ramjas was tried by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tibi for offence under Sec. 471, CrPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. He was convicted and sentenced. The arm recovered from him was forfeited alongwith licence Ex. P. 3 which was alleged to be forged one. On appeal learned Sessions Judge set aside conviction but did not make any order about return of arm to the petitioner. When petitioner filed an application before learned Sessions Judge on 10.7.1996, he passed following order on 17.7.1996 :
(2.) Admittedly, learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the appeal did not pass any order about disposal of the arm which was confiscated by the trial court. To me it appears that the learned Sessions Judge could have passed an order afterwards about disposal of the property involved even after the judgment of acquittal in appeal was pronounced. Phraseology of Sub-sec. (1) quoted above makes it very clear when it says that the court may make such order as it thinks fit for disposal of any property when trial or inquiry is concluded. Use of word may leaves discretion. The trial court may, at any time after trial is concluded, pass order about disposal of property and so can be done by appellate court. It would not mean that if the trial court does not pass any order about disposal of property in judgment of conviction or acquittal, it cannot do so later on. There is no bar. View of the learned Sessions Judge that the court had become functious officio about the disposal of property, especially when it had not passed any order of disposal of rifle in judgment of acquittal, was wrong. Such an order could be passed later on. Arguments of learned Public Prosecutor do not appeal to me. The impugned order of learned Sessions Judge dated 17.7.1995 is not sustainable. The order of learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, set aside and he is directed to dispute of the application dated 10.7.1996 according to law. To this extent, this petition is allowed as it is to secure the ends of justice.