SOBHAGMAL JAIN J.—Heard Shri S.K. Mathur, counsel for the appellant and Shri V.S. Choudhary, public prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated May 10,1990, of the additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, Directing confiscation of the gun alleged to have been involved in Sessions Case No. 19/89, State Versus Ganesh Singh. There is no dispute that the gun belongs to Sarwan, Singh who was also having a licence for the same. According to the prosecution, this gun was, however, used by Ganesh Singh for which he was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated May 10,1990, and a separate appeal filed by Ganesh Singh against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him is pending in this Court. A charge sheet against the present appellant Sarwan Singh was also filed by the police, but he was discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur, by the order dated April 5.1989. A charge sheet against the present appellant Sarwan Singh was also filed by the police, but he was discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur, by the order dated April 5.1989. While discharging the accused, the Additional Sessions Judge recorded the following findings :- ^^bl U;k;ky; dks vR;Ur vkp;Z gS fd Jo.k flga dks bl vijk/k ls tksM+us ds fy;s iqfyl fjiksVZ eas dksbZ lkexzh izLrqr ughas dh xbZ gSA Jo.k flga dh gh canwd ls okj fd;k x;k] bls izdV djus ;ksX; dksbZ ifjfLFkfr ugha ykbZ xbZ gSA ;g vo; izrhr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr x.kskflga] Jo.kflga ds ?kj ij [kkrk ihrk Fkk o jgrk FkkA bl lEHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd Jo.kflga dh bPNk o Kku ds fcuk vfHk;qDr x.ksk flga us mldh cUnwd dks dke esa ys yh gksA ;g ek= nwj dh laHkkouk gSaA okLro esa vfHk;qDr us Jo.kflga okyh gh canwd dke esa yh] bls izdV djus ds fy;s fdafpr ek= Hkh lk{; ugha j[kh xbZ gSA mijksDr voLFkk esa ;g U;k;ky; Jo.kflga dks /kkjk 30 kL= vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi ls fMLpktZ djrk gSA In direction the confiscation of the gun, the Additional Sessions Judge has observed :- canwd tCr djus ds fo"k; esa fopkj fd;k x;kA bl ekeys esa tks canwd iz;qDr dh xbZ gS] og Jo.kflga dh ykbZlsUl lqnk canwd gSA Jo.kflga dks Hkh fopkj.k ds fy, izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq U;k;ky; us mls fMLpktZ dj fn;kaA vfHk;qDr x.ksk flga] Jo.kflga dk dkdk gSA vfHk;qDr Jo.kflga dh canwd dks gLrxr djus esa lQy gqvkA Jo.kflga us ,slh O;oLFkk ugha dh Fkh fd vfHk;qDr canwd izkIr ugha dj ldsA ,slh voLFkk esa bl U;k;ky; dk er gS fd cUnwd tCr dh tkuh pkfg,A vkt Jo.kflga U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSSA bl fo"k; esa Jo.kflga dks lquk x;k fd D;ksa u mldh canwd dks tCr fd;k tkosaA mldk dguk gS fd canwd tCr djus ds ckjs esa mls dqN Hkh ugha dguk gSA 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while discharging the appellant has clearly held that there was nothing on the record to connect him with the offence. It was also observed in that order that the material was sufficient to hold that the gun belong to the appellant was at all firing. On these findings the gun ought to have been delivered to him. It was also observed in that order that the material was sufficient to hold that the gun belong to the appellant was at all firing. On these findings the gun ought to have been delivered to him. However, the appellant is prepared to abide by any conditions if the gun is given him to ensure that the gun shall be properly kept in safe custody. 4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, in my opinion the appellant is entitled to obtain the possession of the gun. It is, directed that the gun shall be delivered to the appellant provided he gets his licence duly renewed by the appropriate authority. The licence shall also be delivered to the appellant. The public prosector submits that as the Additional Sessions Judge had directed that the gun should be dismantled, it might have been dismantled by now. Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, however, submits that the gun has not so far been dismantled as the appeal of Ganesh Singh is still pending. In these circumstances, it is clarified that the order for the delivery of the gun to the appellant shall be effective in case the gun has not so far been dismantled. 5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.