G. Malviya, J. - (1.) When this case was taken up today, it transpired that the court below had disposed of the application under Section 482 Cr1. P.C. with following observations: "On a like application dated 3.1.89, my learned predecessor rejected the application vide order dated 19.1.89 on the ground of being vague and observed that in the application, no details of the wheat in question were disclosed and as to what quantity of wheat was recovered from a particular person. On the same ground and accordingly, application instant, is rejected.
(2.) A perusal of the judgment dated 30.9.85 in Special Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1986 ate Aditya Kumar under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act, P.S. Mohamdabad District Farrukhabad reveals that all the accused in the said case were acquitted. The applicant Vijay Singh was also one of he accused-persons in the above mentioned special trial. He had made the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for release of the wheat which was the case property. It is common ground of both the sides that wheat having been sold, its sale proceeds are lying in the court below. By the impugned order, the application had been dismissed. The appellant has a right of appeal in the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Government Advocate, I do not think any useful purpose would be achieved if this appeal is kept bending in the High Court. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is also of the opinion that if the appellant moves a proper application in the court below. which should be below, of all vagueness and complete in all details etc. then it would be possible for the court below itself to consider the application for release of the wheat on merit.;