Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.337 of 1999 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2. The accused in the said session case was charged under sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC r/w 34 IPC. After the trial, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. While disposing of the case, the learned Session Judge has passed an order with regard to the disposal of the property, which is marked as M.O.5 an Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. TN-02-Z-3645 to the effect that it should be confiscated to the Government. Against the said order, regarding the disposal of the property in the Sessions Case itself, the petitioner, who according to him is the owner of M.O.5 Authorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-02-Z-3645, has preferred this appeal. 3. When the matter is taken up for yesterday (6. 2007), there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Even today also, no representation for the appellant. Heard Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would admit that no appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal. Along with this appeal, the appellant has not produced any document like R.C.Book, Insurance Certificate to show that he is the owner of the Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-02-Z-3645, which was marked as M.O.5 in the above said Session Case. 4. If the petitioner files necessary application before the Sessions Judge for return of the property with the relevant documents to show that he is the owner of M.O.5 Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-02-Z-3645 the same should be considered and necessary orders to be passed by the learned Session Judge. 5. With this observation, the appeal is closed. Consequently connected Crl.M.P.Nos.2052 and 2053 of 2001 are also closed.