Judgment This petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to modify the order passed by this Court on 24.1.1989 in Crl.M.P. No. 11437 of 1988, at the instance of the 1st respondent herein. In Crl.M.P. No.11437 of 1988 this Court passed an order directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanakarankoil to return all the bundles of “Pooja Power” match labels and match boxes after retaining one dozen match boxes and a few labels for the purpose of marking during trial, on the petitioner therein (Velraj) executing bonds as specified. 2. At this stage, some facts require narrating: The petitioner filed a private complaint on 8.6.1988 before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koilpatti against the 1st respondent and three others for alleged offences under Secs.78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Act. The trial Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, referred it for investigation to the 2nd respondent under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During investigation, the 2nd respondent seized labels and match boxes, which are alleged to contain deceptively similar trade mark of the petitioner. The seized property was produced before the trial Magistrate who directed the 2nd respondent to keep it in his custody. 3. The 1st respondent then filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2983 of 1988 before the trial Magistrate for return of the labels and the match boxes, which were seized by the 2nd respondent and produced into Court. Though the petitioner was not impleaded in the said petition, he filed an application to get himself impleaded, and objected to the return of the articles to the 1st respondent. By an order dated 20.9.1988, the trial Magistrate observed that investigation was still pending and the petition could be considered after the filing of the charge-sheet. 4. It is at this stage that the 1st respondent came to this Court for return of the case property to him filing Crl.M.P. No.11437 of 1988. In that petition, the 1st respondent did not choose to implead the petitioner as a party. The order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 11437 of 1988, therefore, was without hearing the petitioner, who is also an aggrieved party in the proceedings. Of course, the learned Government Advocate was heard when orders were passed in Crl.M.P. No.11437 of 1988. In that petition, the 1st respondent did not choose to implead the petitioner as a party. The order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 11437 of 1988, therefore, was without hearing the petitioner, who is also an aggrieved party in the proceedings. Of course, the learned Government Advocate was heard when orders were passed in Crl.M.P. No.11437 of 1988. That cannot solve the problem because the petitioner is entitled to be heard before any orders could be passed, concerning return of the property, which would require consideration in the light of the averments in the complaint. 5. The order passed in Crl.M.P. No.11437 of 1988 without hearing the petitioner will therefore, be a nullity and it is set aside. The trial Magistrate is directed to enquire into the petition for return of property filed by the 1st respondent, which is. being objected to by the petitioner, and dispose of the matter in accordance with law after providing . opportunity for both parties. Since the learned Government Advocate represents that the property is huge and is occupying a substantial portion of the police station, the trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of this petition within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. In the result, with the above observations, this petition is allowed.