Judgment : This Writ Petition can be disposed of at this stage, since I have had the benefit of hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner herein is a Toddy Cooperative Society Limited, Peddapalem. It sought for a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not renewing its licence bearing No. NRT/20/1/2007-08/TCS, on the ground that the original licence is not produced, as bad in law. It appears that the office-bearers of the petitioner Society have been prosecuted for an excise offence in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said case has ended in acquittal. The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Krosuru, Guntur District prosecuted the said criminal case. During the course of trial, while examining the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, the Additional Public Prosecutor got marked the original licence of the petitioner Society as Ex.P2. Two of the members of the petitioner Society, by name Sri Mallala Ramaswamy and Sri Mallala Yedukondalu applied to the Court by moving Criminal M.P.No. 153 of 2013 in S.C.No 17 of 2011 seeking return of Exs.P2 to P4. That Application has been dealt with by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, who, by his order dated 22.11.2013, returned Exs.P3 and P4, which are identity cards of Accused No. 1 and 2 therein. While dealing with the issue of return of Ex.P2, the Court has noticed that the licence was issued in the name of the President, Peddapalem Toddy Cooperative Society and hence, it does not contain the names of either of the two petitioners, who moved Criminal M.P.No. 153 of 2013 and also secondly, for the reason that the period of licence has expired by 30.09.2012, the Court opined that the petitioners cannot claim return of that document. Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Krosuru is the de facto complainant and also the one, who has prosecuted Sessions Case No. 17 of 2011, it is for him to secure the return of Ex.P2 marked by him before that Court. Ex.P2 licence is therefore, liable to be restored by him to the Society. Ex.P2 licence is therefore, liable to be restored by him to the Society. Because of his failure to restore the licence, now the consequence of not getting it renewed is being felt by all the members of the Society. When the petitioner, according to the learned counsel, applied for, the Court refused to return the documents. A situation of impossibility is thus created. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise would submit that unless the original is produced, the question of renewal thereof would not arise because necessary endorsements have to be made only on the original licence. The answer to the problem of the writ petitioner lies in Rule 219 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 framed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in consultation with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 219 enables applications from parties or other persons for return of documents filed in Court to be made to the Court in which they were originally filed. If the judge or magistrate is satisfied that such a document will not be required for reference in proceedings pending either before his own Court or the Court of appeal or revision, he can pass such an order. If a third party to a criminal case applies for return of an original document, marked as an exhibit on behalf of either prosecution or defence, the judge or the magistrate concerned is bound to be very cautious in his approach. A document, which does not belong to a party, who has applied for, shall not normally be returned at all, unless the party is able to establish his right to receive the same in accordance with law or by producing the necessary authorization from the person, who is authorized to seek return of the same. For instance, a document relating to a third party may also get marked as an exhibit in a criminal trial, either by the prosecution or by the defence. Normally, whoever has got the document marked can solicit for return of such a document, after the case is decided and when such document is not needed for further reference by that very Court or any other Court of Appeal or Revision. Then, the Court will not be answerable to any third party for return of such a document. Normally, whoever has got the document marked can solicit for return of such a document, after the case is decided and when such document is not needed for further reference by that very Court or any other Court of Appeal or Revision. Then, the Court will not be answerable to any third party for return of such a document. To be on the safe side, perhaps, the Court can ask for a copy of such a document to be kept on the case record and original to be returned, so that for the purpose of verification, at any later point of time, there will not be any hardship or difficulty faced by the Court concerned. But, if the document is sought return of, by a third party, who has no connection whatsoever, till then, with the criminal case, some difficulty can be faced by the Court in returning the document. It is worthy of notice that some of the documents can have great legal consequence and importance. Return of such documents to unauthorized persons can create lot of problems to such persons, who got marked them during trial. Therefore, if a third party is applying for return of a document, he must necessarily produce the authorization from the person, who otherwise is entitled to seek return of the said document. Not to sound to be exhaustive, I would take an illustration. Where the State has prosecuted ‘A’ for an offence and in that process marked a document relating to ‘B’, in such a case, ‘B’ can turn up and request the Court to return the document to him by establishing his own identity and connectivity with the document concerned, but instead of ‘B’ applying for it, let us say ‘C’ applies for return of the document. If the document is unsuspectingly returned to ‘C’, he can possibly later on misuse or abuse the same for purposes of creating some hardship or the other to ‘B’. Therefore, ‘C’ is required to produce the necessary authorization from ‘B’ disclosing, in clear terms, that he has no objection for the document in question to be returned to ‘C’. In such an eventuality, the Court, upon returning the document to ‘C’, will not be held accountable or responsible for any consequences following there from to ‘B’. Therefore, ‘C’ is required to produce the necessary authorization from ‘B’ disclosing, in clear terms, that he has no objection for the document in question to be returned to ‘C’. In such an eventuality, the Court, upon returning the document to ‘C’, will not be held accountable or responsible for any consequences following there from to ‘B’. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner Society to apply to the Court concerned for returning the original licence of the shop by approaching itself or specifically authorizing any person on its behalf to receive the original licence to enable it to seek its renewal. As and when the said original is produced, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would assure this Court that necessary attention would be paid for the application for renewal by the respondents. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.