JUDGMENT : A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. The appellants along with the others stood trial in S.C. No. 130/2011, on the file of the Sessions Court at Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 304 r/w 149, IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 30 of Arms Act. After holding trial, by a judgment dated 31.08.2012, the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Mysuru, acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 304 r/w 149, IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 30 of Arms Act and their bail bonds were cancelled. However, M.Os. 12 to 28 were ordered to be confiscated to the State. 2. The appellants subsequently filed an application under Section 452(1), Cr.P.C., to release the guns, marked as M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26. Said application having been dismissed, on the ground that it was filed after one year and that the applicants should have challenged the order of confiscation by filing the appeal, this appeal was filed. 3. There being delay in filing the appeal, I.A. No. 1/2014 was filed. Perused I.A. No. 1/2014. The delay in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained. Hence, the delay is condoned and I.A. No. 1/2014 is allowed. 4. Sri R. V. Ramesh Kumar, learned advocate for the appellants, by placing reliance on the decision in N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1829 , contended that the order of confiscation having been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the same being manifestly arbitrary is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that despite application filed under Section 452(1), Cr.P.C., there being non-consideration in the manner required under law, the order passed by the court below, on 20.05.2014, in S.C. No. 130/2011 and also the judgment dated 31.08.2012 to the extent, it directs the confiscation of M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26 is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri. B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP, did not dispute the fact that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as having become final. Hence, learned counsel was unable to support the order passed on 20.05.2014, by the Trial Court, declining to release M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26 and also the impugned judgment insofar as it directs the confiscation of the guns. 6. Perused the record. Hence, learned counsel was unable to support the order passed on 20.05.2014, by the Trial Court, declining to release M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26 and also the impugned judgment insofar as it directs the confiscation of the guns. 6. Perused the record. The appellants and the other accused, after conducting the trial, were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 304 r/w 149, IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 30 of Arms Act, vide judgment dated 31.08.2012, passed in S.C. No. 130/2011 by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Mysuru. Said judgment has become final. 7. It is not the case of the respondent that the appellants were heard prior to the passing of the judgment/order of confiscation of M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26. Application filed for release of the said M.Os. has been dismissed, on the ground that the same was filed after a lapse of a year and that the judgment of confiscation ought to have been questioned by way of an appeal in this Court. The approach of the Trial Judge in the matter of consideration of the I.A. and the reason assigned to deny the relief sought in the application are erroneous. 8. The decision of the Apex Court in N. Madhavan ( AIR 1979 SC 1829 ) (supra), has not been noticed by the learned Trial Judge, when the order dated 20.05.2014 was passed. Application has not been considered in accordance with law. While passing the judgment of acquittal, opportunity of hearing with regard to confiscation of the aforesaid M.Os. having not been granted to the accused, the Trial Judge ought to have considered the application filed, seeking release of M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26. Since the application has not been considered and decided on its merit and error having been committed, it is ordered as follows: Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 31.08.2012, passed in S.C. No. 130/2011, to the extent of confiscation of the M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26 is set aside. The application filed for release of the said M.Os. Since the application has not been considered and decided on its merit and error having been committed, it is ordered as follows: Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 31.08.2012, passed in S.C. No. 130/2011, to the extent of confiscation of the M.Os. 14 to 18 and 26 is set aside. The application filed for release of the said M.Os. by the accused/appellants shall be considered afresh by keeping in view the ratio of law in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. Madhavan ( AIR 1979 SC 1829 ) (supra) and the order passed with expedition and within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. Appeal allowed.