IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.785 of 2011 Sarju Sharma Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3/ 18.7.2011 This appeal is itself not maintainable as the Miscellaneous petition, which was filed before the Sessions Judge, was not maintainable because in the light of the submission the trial had been conducted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge – I, Danapur. In the light of section 452 Cr.P.C., any petition seeking release of any property which was seized during the course of investigation, has to be filed before the trial court on conclusion of the trial and in case the trial court had refused the prayer for releasing the seized property, the appellant could have approached this Court. In fact, the Sessions Judge, Patna did not have any jurisdiction to entertain Misc. Case No. 45 of 2010. Let the appellant approach the appropriate forum with a proper petition for seeking an appropriate relief and in case he does not get that, he could have any cause for preferring an appeal, as may appear from the provision of section 454 Cr.P.C. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)