ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘for short ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking to quash the order of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 passed in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007, dated 28.08.2009 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge Kurnool at Adoni, and to return the property to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the licence holder of M.O.1- A 12 Bore SBBL Gun bearing No.A-50622, M.O.2 - A 0.22 Caliber Rifle bearing No. 533207, M.O.3 - Seven Red colour cartridges, and M.O.4 - Twenty Five metallic cartridges which were seized on 30.05.2004 while carrying in a Fiat car and a case was registered in Cr.No.68/2004 of Halaharvi Police Station for the offence under Section 25 (1-b) (a) of Arms Act against one Boya Ramanjaneyulu and investigated the case and filed charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.151 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur. After a full-fledged trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 25 (1-b) (a) of the Arms Act for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and the Material Objects 1 to 7 were ordered to be confiscated to the State, under Section 32 of the Arms Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, and the said appeal was disposed of by acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 25 (1-b) (a) of Arms Act. The order of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State, is confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner who is claimed to be the owner of M.Os.1 to 4 filed the present petition on the ground that he is possessing licence and sought for quashing the order of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007, dt.28.08.2009 and to return the property to the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the licence holder of M.Os.1 to 4 and that the petitioner is entitled to claim M.Os.1 to 4. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the licence holder of M.Os.1 to 4 and that the petitioner is entitled to claim M.Os.1 to 4. The order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Adoni suffered from incurable legal infirmities and the order of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 is unsustainable under law. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has to seek his remedy by filing a revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C and the petitioner cannot invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Now the point for determination is, “Whether the impugned order with regard to confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State, suffers from any illegality and infirmity and as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim M.Os.1 to 4?” 7. In the present case, the petitioner is claimed to be the owner of M.Os.1 to 4 under a valid licence. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any application after disposal of the Criminal Appeal either before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alur, or the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni to return the property to him. Instead of filing an application before the above-mentioned Courts, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order to the extent of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State and to return the same to the petitioner. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959. 32. Power to confiscate.?(1) When any person is convicted under this Act of any offence committed by him in respect of any arms or ammunition, it shall be in the discretion of the convicting court further to direct that the whole or any portion of such arms or ammunition, and any vessel, vehicle or other means of conveyance and any receptacle or thing containing, or used to conceal, the arms or ammunition shall be confiscated: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the order of confiscation shall become void. (2) An order of confiscation may also be made by the appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. 9. It is, thus, clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur is empowered to order confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State under Section 32 of the Arms Act, on conviction of the individual under the Arms Act. Therefore, it is clear that the order of conviction alone would result in the confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State. 10. But, in the instant case, the Appellate Court acquitted the accused in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007 for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, however, confirmed the order of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever, to declare that the order of confiscation passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is totally untenable and unsustainable under law. When the accused was acquitted in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni has to pass an order in detail on whether to return the property i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 to the petitioner herein who is possessing licence or to confiscate to the State. It is no doubt, that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The order has resulted in manifest injustice, contrary to law. 11. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2007, dt.28.08.2009 with regard to confirming the order of confiscation of M.Os.1 to 4 to the State, is set aside and accordingly quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction that the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alur, and on such application the learned Magistrate has to examine the entitlement of M.Os.1 to 4 to the petitioner and to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.