0HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3706 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is the wife of one B.V.Srinivasa. She is resident of Bangalore. She has been going around litigation after litigation for recovery of the material objects or the cost thereof. The II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who was the then Designated Judge for trial of TADA cases and the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor have washed off their respective hands throwing the burden upon the other court to deal with the matter. 2. The facts arise in the following circumstances. In S.C.No.207 of 1993 on the file of the II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court-cum Designated Court for TADA Cases, the husband of the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.29. Through a voluminous Judgment, the learned II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, acquitted A-29 and several other accused. Several material objects were involved in the case. In the last para of the Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, ordered for the retention of M.Os.1 to 356 and 414 to 466 for the purpose of trial in S.C.Nos.198 of 1996, 107 of 1998 and 293 of 1998 on the file of the II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He ordered the return of M.Os. 357 to 413 to the designated court, Chittoor, after expiry of the appeal time. The petitioner claims ownership to M.Os. 362 to 413. These are the properties ordered to be returned by the trial court to the designated court, Chittoor. The material objects are pistols, revolvers, rifles and guns. 3. Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner as the wife of A-29 is entitled for return of M.Os. 362 to 413 or the value thereof. 4. A-29 was stated to be the licenced armed dealer. M.Os.362 to 413 and other material objects were seized by V.Kota Police from A-29. It may be noticed that the State preferred an appeal from the Judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.207 of 1993 by filing SLP (Crl) No.795 of 1999. The Supreme Court however, was pleased to dismiss the same on 21.11.2000. The Judgment of the leaned II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge in SC No.207 of 1993 thus, became final. A-29 died on 26.1.2003. The petitioner, who is the wife of A-29 thereafter preferred a petition before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for issuance of succession certificate. The succession certificate was accordingly issued in favour of the petitioner relating to the SBBL guns listed in the schedule of the succession certificate. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to receive back the arms referred to in the succession certificate which are covered by M.Os. 362 to 413 of SC No.207 of 1993. 6. The real problem of the petitioner commenced thereafter. The petitioner initially approached the Sessions Court, Chittoor for return of M.Os. 362 to 413 or the value thereof. The learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, has returned the application holding that the petitioner shall approach the II Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who passed the orders in the Sessions Case. The petitioner then approached the II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, who in turn returned the application on 13.9.2007 endorsing that M.Os. 362 to 413 were originally seized by V.Kota police with reference to Cr.No.81 of 1991, that the property consequently has been returned to the Sessions Judge, Chittoor and that the petitioner shall approach the Sessions Court, Chittor for the return of the property. The petitioner thereafter filed Crl.M.P.No.217 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Chittoor seeking for the return of M.Os. 362 to 413 in SC No.207 of 1993. Through the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, once again directed the petitioner to approach the II Addl.Metrpolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and not the Sessions Court, Chittoor. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid. 7. Evidently, the petitioner is not a licenced holder. M.Os.362 to 413 are arms. No one can possess them without licnece or licence to sell them. Where the petitioner is not the holder of any licence either to hold or hold and sell M.Os. 362 to 413, the petitioner certainly shall not be entitled to physical return of M.Os. 362 to 413. At best, the petitioner can seek for the return of the value of M.Os. 362 to 413. 8. Relating to the merits of the case, admittedly, M.Os. 362 to 413 belonged to A-29 and the petitioner succeeded to the estate of A- 29. More important, admittedly, the petitioner was found to be entitled to the properties covered by the schedule in the succession certificate. It is not clear as to whether all the material objects in M.Os. 362 to 413 are covered by the succession certificate. The petitioner shall be entitled to the refund of the value of M.Os. 362 to 413 to the extent covered by the succession certificate only. 9. The fundamental question is as to who shall return the property and how should the property be dealt with. The Judgment in SC No.207 of 1993 was disposed of by a highly experienced Judicial Officer. However, unfortunately, he left vagueness relating to the disposal of M.Os.362 to 413 thereunder. He merely directed the return of M.Os. 357 to 413 to the Designated Court, Chittoor. The learned II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge did not pass any specific direction as to how to deal with the said property. In the absence of orders, the leaned II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, when the property was transmitted to the Sessions Court, Chittoor, it is the Sessions court, Chittoor, which shall deal with the disposal of the property. The II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad would become functus officio once the court disposed of SC No.207 of 1993. 10. Under Section 452 Cr.P.C. when the trial court concluded trial, it may make an order regarding the disposal of the property. In the present case, the order passed by the trial court in the II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad is transmission of M.Os.362 to 413 to the Sessions Court, Chittoor for disposal according to law. It is not the case of anybody that M.Os.362 to 413 are required with reference to any other Sessions Case. It is not as though the owner of the property of all these material objects is unknown. Admittedly M.Os. 362 to 413 were seized from A-29. Admittedly, the petitioner is the wife of A-29. Again, admittedly, the petitioner obtained succession certificate with reference to the movable property covered by these material objects as the schedule of the succession certificate. Where the material objects were seized from A-29 and where the petitioner as the wife of A-29 obtained succession certificate with respect to the material objects, I agree with the contention of the of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive the material objects in respect of which she laid the application in Crl.M.P.No.317 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor. As pointed at the very beginning, the petitioner, who is not the licenced holder, however is not entitled to take possession of the arms. The petitioner consequently, should be entitled to the value of the properties to the extent they are common in M.Os.362 to 413 and the schedule of the succession certificate. The learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, shall dispose of this property in accordance with law relating to the disposal of arms. He may sell the same to a licenced holder in the event it is permitted under the Arms Act and the Rules thereunder. After the disposal of the property and after receipt of the value of the property, he shall make over the same to the petitioner upon fresh petition from the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the property in accordance with rules within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the orders. 11. With the above observations, the criminal petition is disposed of. _______________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Mjl/*