JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.7.94, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant-petitioners and refused to order for the delivery of the articles (licensed arms) to the accused-appellants. 2. The application of the appellants was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that while deciding the case of the accused-appellants on 15.5.75, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, ordered for the confiscation of the rifle of Gurcharan Singh along with the licence and the live cartridges marked as Articles 23, 24, 25 and 28; Carbine gun (Article 39) along with the licence of Balkaran Singh; Pistol (Article 36) along with licence of accused Udai Singh; gun (Article 34) recovered from accused Joginder Singh alias Mada Singh was ordered to be delivered to Muktiar Singh (DW 2) and the Double Barrel Gun (Article 10) along with Bandoleer (Article 11), which contained five live cartridges and two more live cartridges (Articles 15 and 16) were ordered to be confiscated. As the order relating to these articles has already been passed, therefore, according to the learned Sessions Judge, no order for the delivery of these articles to the appellants can, now, be passed. 3. The appellants were arrested in connection with an FIR lodged by one Vichitra Singh S/o Shri Dal Singh R/o Karadwala, on 28.8.73, at 11.00 a.m., at Police Station, Sadulshahar. During the enquiry, licensed arms and other articles were recovered from the appellants. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and Mada Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 1973. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, after trial, acquitted accused Mada Singh and Har Govind Singh, but convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Gurcharan Singh, Bal Karan Singh and Udai Singh for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, also, passed the following order regarding disposal of the articles:- (1) The rifle of Gurcharan Singh and live cartridges with licences, Articles 23, 24, 25 and 28 be confiscated to the State. (2) Similarly, the carbine or accused Balkaran Singh Article 39 with its licence and the double barrel gun of accused Udai Singh Article 35 and pistol Article 36 with their licences be confiscated to the State. (2) Similarly, the carbine or accused Balkaran Singh Article 39 with its licence and the double barrel gun of accused Udai Singh Article 35 and pistol Article 36 with their licences be confiscated to the State. (3) The gun recovered at the instance of Mada Singh Article 34 be returned to Mukhtiyar Singh (DW 2). (4) Double barrel gun of the deceased Jeeta Singh Article 10 and bandoleer Article 11 containing live cartridges and the two other live cartridges found at the spot, Articles 15 and 16, be sent to the District Magistrate, Ganganagar, and the other confiscated property be also sent to the District Magistrate, Ganganagar. Articles 10 and 11 are not confiscated to the State but they are sent to the District Magistrate, Ganganagar, for disposal in accordance with law. (5) The mud-guard of the tractor be returned to Vichiter Singh. The other articles recovered from the person of deceased Jeeta Singh (vide Ex. P. 22) be returned to his widow Gurpal Kaur." 4. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 15.5.75, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Balkaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Udai Singh, they preferred an appeal before the High Court. The appeal, filed by these appellants, was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 12.4.77 and the judgment passed by the trial court, convicting and sentencing these appellants, was maintained. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 12.4.77, passed by the High Court, the appellants Balkaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Udai Singh preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was allowed by the Apex Court Vide its judgment dated 26.7.85, and the conviction and sentence of these appellants were set aside. After the acquittal of these appellants by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants moved an application for the delivery of their licensed arms and other articles, before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, but that application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the order regarding disposal of these articles has already been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, and, therefore, no fresh order can be passed. It is against this order that the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were acquitted by the Supreme Court and as such their licensed arms etc. It is against this order that the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were acquitted by the Supreme Court and as such their licensed arms etc. should be returned to them because after their acquittal it cannot be said that these articles were used in the commission of the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants, which was affirmed by the High Court, has been set-aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the accused-appellants have been acquitted by the Apex Court. The acquittal of the appellants, thus, clearly shows that the articles recovered on their information and at their instance, were not used by them in causing fatal injury to the deceased. The acquittal of the appellants further shows that these articles were not used in the commission of any offence by the appellants. The judgment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, as affirmed by the High Court, has been set-aside by the Supreme Court and with the acquittal of the appellants, the order regarding confiscation of the articles, also, goes away and the learned Sessions Judge should have, therefore, ordered for the delivery of the licensed arms and the other articles to the appellants provided they are their licensed articles and the appellants are having the valid licences for these articles in their favour. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application of the appellants for the delivery of the articles to them on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, which has already been set-aside by the Apex Court. The order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, should, therefore, consider the case Of the appellants afresh regarding delivery of the licensed arms and other articles to them and the order for the delivery of the same, provided that these articles were recovered from them and they have the valid licences for keeping these fire-arms. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, should, therefore, consider the case Of the appellants afresh regarding delivery of the licensed arms and other articles to them and the order for the delivery of the same, provided that these articles were recovered from them and they have the valid licences for keeping these fire-arms. If the period of the valid licences has already been expired then the learned Court below may order for the delivery of the licences to the appellants for getting them renewed and after the renewal of the licences the Court below may pass an appropriate order. If the appellants have no valid licences in their favour or the arms are not licensed-one then those arms can be confiscated. 8. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is allowed and the order dated 13.7.94, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for passing a fresh order in view of the observations made above.Appeal allowed. *******