JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - Appellant Dalloo has filed this appeal under Section 454, Cr. P.C. against the order dated January 19, 1978 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No. A-236 of 1976 connected with S.T. No. A-301 of 1976, confiscating the S.B.L. gun No. 4083 (material Ext. 7) of that case on the grounds that the order of confiscation was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant to put forward his claim to the gun or show the circumstances for not confiscating the gun. Both the sides have been heard. 2. The material brought on the record from the side of the State itself shows that the major part of the gun was recovered from the house of Dalloo appellant. The licence was also recovered from his house. Both items were taken into possession by the police. This seems to have been done during the course of investigation of the main (dacoity) case in which the gun was exhibited. The relevant recovery memo is dated April 17, 1976 Ext. Ka-13 of the Sessions Case. The judgment of the trial Court does not make out that the gun belonged to any of the accused. There is no clear cut mention in the judgment that the gun was used by any of the accused during the commission of dacoity. 3. The contention of the appellant is that in view of the aforesaid circumstances particularly keeping in view the fact that the gun and licence were recovered from the house of the appellant, the appellant has not only become an aggrieved person due to the order of confiscation passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in respect of the gun, but was prejudiced for having been not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the order of confiscation. The order of confiscation is undoubtedly adverse to the appellant. The basic principle of natural justice requires that the aggrieved persons should have been afforded opportunity in respect of the gun recovered from his house before the Additional Sessions Judge passed the final order about the confiscation of the gun. In view of the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. The basic principle of natural justice requires that the aggrieved persons should have been afforded opportunity in respect of the gun recovered from his house before the Additional Sessions Judge passed the final order about the confiscation of the gun. In view of the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order for confiscation of the aforesaid gun and the case (which means this matter) is remanded to the court concerned for giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forward and establish his claim to the gun. The Sessions Judge may also give opportunity to any other person who come forward claiming or having interest in the gun. Thereafter, he will pass an order for disposal of the gun. Till the final order is passed by him, the gun shall remain either in the custody of the court or in such custody as the Additional Sessions Judge directs.