JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment & order dated 4th October, 1989, by which, the trial court has confiscated the gun, which was recovered from the possession of appellant Nathhi. 2. The Police submitted a challan against appellant Nathhi and 5 others, for offences under Sections 147 & 302/149, Indian Penal Code. In that dispute, Kanhaiya Lal was shot dead. During that quarrel, Bheema, father of the appellant, Nathhi, on behalf of the accused persons, also died. The Police registered two cases-one, on the complaint of Nathhi and other, on that of Ram Singh, whose brother Kanhaiya Lal expired. 3. After the trial, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons in both the cross-cases. In Sessions Case No. 19/89, in which, the impugned order has been passed the trial court observed that from the investigation of the Police, it has been found that the gun which as recovered vide memo (Ex. P 4), from the possession of Nathhi appellant, had been used as a weapon for committing the offence, and, therefore, the trial court ordered that though the case has not been proved against the appellant, but as the weapon had been used for committing the offence, it was confiscated to the State Government. Against that judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Heard both the learned Counsel. Appellant Nathhi and others were prosecuted for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and were acquitted by the trial court. The gun which was recovered from the possession of Nathhi, was of his father Bheema. The licence of this gun was in the name of Bheema. Bheema has expired in this incident. But, the gun which was recovered after the death of Bheema, from the possession of Kanhaiya Lal is a licenced gun. It is not the case of the prosecution that the gun which was used in this incident, was an unlicensed gun. So, the licence of the recovered gun, was in the name of Bheema, who expired in the incident. Nathhi is the son of deceased Bheema and after the death of Bheema, the Police recovered and seized the gun from the possession of Kanhaiya Lal. A case for acquittal is found and the reasoning given by the trial court to confiscate the gun, is not a correct order and cannot be maintained. Nathhi is the son of deceased Bheema and after the death of Bheema, the Police recovered and seized the gun from the possession of Kanhaiya Lal. A case for acquittal is found and the reasoning given by the trial court to confiscate the gun, is not a correct order and cannot be maintained. If the accused has been found not guilty and has been released, the gun which was seized from his possession should be returned to him. Therefore, the impugned order dated 4-10-1989, cannot be sustained. 5. The question remains as to whom the gun is to be returned. The gun was in the name of Bheema, who has expired. Appellant Nathhi is the son of Bheema. If Nathhi gets a licence for the transfer of the gun in his name, or if be gets his name entered in the licence of Bheema, as a retainer, the gun may be given to him, but, till then, the gun should be kept in the custody of the court. The licence of Bheema, which has also been seized, be returned to appellant Nathhi, who should either get the licence transferred in his name or get his name entered in that licence, as a retainer of the gun. For that purpose, the licence be returned to Nathhi, who would follow the necessary procedure. He should apply to the District Magistrate for either transferring the licence in his name or getting his name entered in that licence as a retainer of the gun. After Nathi's getting the licence transferred in his name or entered his name in that licence as a retainer, the trial court is directed to return the gun to appellant Nathhi. Nathhi appellant is directed to the District Magistrate accordingly for the licence of the gun in his favour, within a period of one month of receipt of the licence from the trial court. 6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.Order accordingly. *******