JUDGMENT 1. - The applications no. 344/86 and 345/86 are filed by Mruduraj Singh and Sangram Singh. Sangram Singh in his application has prayed that the Single barell gun No. 49 -24 may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner. Similarly, Mruduraj Singh in his application prayed that the airgun belonging to the petitioner may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner. These applications are submitted after the decision of case No. 109/81 which was pending in the court of Distt. and Sessions Judge, Jaipur. In that order the learned Sessions Judge directed to Shiv Singh, the accused in that case. This judgement dated 20.3.86 has passed even though the applications of Mruduraj Singh and Sangram Singh were there on the record before the trial court. But no order was passed by the trial court on these application. It is thus clear that the present applicants would have filed appeal under section 454 Cr. PC against the order of Distt. and Sessions Judge dated 20.3.86 but the present applicants did not file appeal against the aforesaid Judgment of the learnd Sessions Judge. In a matter where alternative remedy is available, I am of the opinion that powers under section 482 Cr. PC cannot be invoked because inherent powers of this court are to be exercised very spangly and that too, to avoid miscarriage of justice. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants to withdraw these applications with liberty to file appeal against the order of the learned Distt. and Sessions judge. The learned counsel further submitted that it may also be directed that the applicants shall get the benefit of extention of limitation in the present circumstances. 2. The applicants are allowed to withdraw the applications with liberty to file appeal under section 454 Cr. PC but no order as to condone the delay can be passed in these applications. This is possible in the original appeal which are to be filed by the applicants. The present applications are, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.Petition dismissed. *******