JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. submitted in the following circumstances. A case under Sections 307, 353, 332, 147, 148, and 149 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and 9 others in the police-station Tapukara, District Alwar. During the investigation one double barrel 12 bore gun was recovered from the petitioner on 19.12.73 by preparing seizure memo. After the trial of the case, the petitioner along with the other accused persons were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar by his judgment dated 17.12.1975. No appeal was filed by the State against the order of acquittal. It appears that no order was passed for the delivery of the above gun while acquitting the accused persons. Thereafter on 5.1.1977 the matter was brought to the notice of the presiding Judge on the administrative side and the learned Additional Session Judge without giving any notice to the petitioner passed an order that the gun in question be confiscated and the same be sent to the District Magistrate, Alwar for disposal. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for returning the above gun to him. On this application the learned Additional Session Judge passed an order on 12.6.78 that he had no jurisdiction now to pass any order as his predecessor had already passed an order on 5.1.77. The petitioner has now submitted an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 5.1.77 and 12.6.78 with a further prayer that the gun in question be returned to the petitioner. On 4.11.80 learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to file an application that this petition under Section 482 may be treated as an appeal u/s 454 Cr. P.C. and for filing an application under section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for extending the period of limitation for filing an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter again sought time twice. The learned counsel for the petitioner today expressed his inability to move any application for treating this application as tin appeal and submitted that he would argue this petition as filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 5.1.77 was merely an administrative order and was passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is also contended that the order dated 12.6.78 is not a judicial order as the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not pass any order on merits but rejected the application of the petitioner merely on the ground that in view of an order passed by his predecessor on 5.1.77, now he had no jurisdiction to pass any order on merits. It is thus contended that both the above orders are not passed under Section 452 Cr. P.C. and as such there was no question of filing an appeal and the only remedy available for the petitioner was to move an application under section 482 under the inherent powers of this Court. As regards the merits of this case are concerted, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gun in question was admitted recovered from the possession of the petitioner and there is no other claimant and the petitioner is also a licence holder. Learned Public Prosecutor was unable to refute the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the gun in question was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and in the normal course it ought to have been returned to him. There is no other claimant of the gun and the petitioner is also a licence holder of the gun. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed the order on 5-1-77 behind the back of the petitioner for confiscating the same. Thus there was no question of filing any appeal against that order. The order dated 12-6-78 does not decide any question on merits and in these circumstances I think that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that this petition under Section 482 was maintainable for quashing order is dated 5-1-77 and 12-6-78. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was clearly wrong in passing an order of confiscating the gun in question when it was admittedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is also a licence holder of this gun. 3. In the result, this petition is allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was clearly wrong in passing an order of confiscating the gun in question when it was admittedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is also a licence holder of this gun. 3. In the result, this petition is allowed. The two orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 5-1-77 and 12-6-78 are quashed and it is directed that the gun in question recovered from the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 80/78 State v. Sugru and others be delivered to the petitioner after completing the necessary formalities.Petition allowed. *******