ORDER : 1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.01.2019, passed by learned Special Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2018, titled as Mahinder Singh vs. State of H.P. whereby on application filed by respondent Mahinder Singh, during pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 13 of 2009 dated 09.09.2009 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act) in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Solan, District Solan, H.P. learned Special Judge has ordered to release currency, wrist watch, Gold ornaments, FDRs etc. to respondent Mahinder Singh on furnishing Sapurdari bond amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- by respondent. These articles were recovered and seized by Vigilance Team in raid of house of Mahinder Singh during investigation by considering these articles to have been accumulated by the respondent as assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 2. During pendency of trial as well as present petition, respondent-Mahinder Singh, has expired on 29.04.2021. 3. As per instructions received from the office of Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB, SR, Shimla, placed on record by learned Deputy Advocate General, on account of death of the respondent-Mahinder Singh, Criminal case pending against him in case FIR 13 of 2009 referred supra, titled as State of H.P. vs. Mahinder Singh has been ordered to be closed as abated by learned Special Judge, Una, H.P. vide order dated 30.07.2021 and another case in FIR No. 7 of 2010, registered against the respondent, has also been closed by learned Special Judge, Una, vide separate order dated 30.07.2021. It has further been stated in the instructions that in these cases, there are no specific directions for disposal of the case property. 4. The case property was seized during investigation, claiming it to be disproportionate assets accumulated by the respondent beyond his known sources of income. The said allegation was to be adjudicated during trial and thereafter, on the basis of conclusion of the trial, above referred property was to be disposed of, released or confiscated by the judicial order of the Court. 5. The said allegation was to be adjudicated during trial and thereafter, on the basis of conclusion of the trial, above referred property was to be disposed of, released or confiscated by the judicial order of the Court. 5. Now trial has been closed as abated without adjudication of the allegation of the prosecution and without determining as to whether property seized by the Investigating Agency was disproportionate assets or not and there is no judicial proceeding pending for adjudicating this issue, nor there is any judicial verdict declaring aforesaid property/articles disproportionate to the income of the deceased respondent. In these circumstances, present petition also deserves to be closed as abated, on account of death of respondent-Mahinder Singh. 6. There is no order passed by trial Court with respect to case property at the time of closing the trials as abated. As the case property cannot be kept in seize or in custody of the Court or police for infinite or indefinite period, therefore, in these circumstances, the property in question shall devolve upon legal heirs of deceased respondent as, undisputedly, they have a right to inherit the property of deceased Mahinder Singh unless barred from claiming it under any law. Thus, petitioner-State has lost right to keep the property in question under seize. 7. In view of above, present petition is disposed of as abated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.