New Delhi, Nov. 8 -- For a private bodyguard, a revolver is more than a weapon - it can be the key to a job. Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus learnt this the hard way when the police seized his licensed revolver in 2012 in a criminal case, leaving him unable to find work in the very profession he depended on to feed his family. Even after he and seven other accused were acquitted in 2013, the weapon stayed with the authorities, while his plea to get it back languished in court for years. The Supreme Court has now stepped in, ruling that the pendency of an appeal against his acquittal cannot, by itself, justify keeping his revolver away from him indefinitely. Linking the prolonged deprivation of the weapon to its impact on his livelihood, a bench of justices Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan and Aparesh Kumar Singh directed Maharashtra to return it within eight weeks, subject to compliance with the applicable requirements under the Arms Act. The bench noted that Yunus, a private bodyguard responsible for maintaining a family of six, had been deprived of his licensed revolver for more than a decade after his acquittal, without any court examining his claim for its return on merits. "The prolonged retention of the revolver has also had consequences for petitioner's livelihood. He is employed in the private security sector and possession of the revolver is necessary for him to secure employment in that field.Pendency of appeals by itself does not determine petitioner's entitlement for the return of the revolver," said the bench in a recent order, pointing out that both the courts below had allowed the pending appeals to impede adjudication of his application. The bench directed the state to take necessary steps to hand over the revolver to Yunus within eight weeks, subject to compliance with the applicable requirements under the Arms Act, 1959. It clarified that the order would not affect the pending appeal against the acquittal before the Bombay high court. The ruling underscored a basic principle of criminal justice that seizure of property during an investigation cannot translate into its indefinite retention, particularly when the trial has ended in acquittal and no other ground has been shown to warrant keeping it. Yunus's revolver was seized in 2012 during the investigation of an FIR registered at Bazar Peth police station in Jalgaon under provisions relating to attempt to murder, abetment and destruction of evidence, as well as the Arms Act. He was named as the eighth accused in the case, but the sessions court acquitted all eight accused in March 2013 and directed that the seized articles be returned after the appeal period expired. Yunus subsequently approached the sessions court in January 2014, seeking the return of his licensed weapon. He told the court that he could not find employment without it and expressed willingness to comply with any conditions imposed for its release. The application was rejected in February 2015 because an appeal against acquittal was pending. His subsequent challenge before the Bombay High Court met a similar fate. In March 2015, the high court directed that his application be heard along with the appeals against acquittal. Both remained pending for years, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to move the top court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court said Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers criminal courts to decide the disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial, requires the court to determine whether seized property should be returned or retained in the circumstances of the case. The underlying principle, it said, is that seized property should not remain in police or court custody longer than absolutely necessary. In Yunus's case, the bench noted, he had been acquitted of all charges and no material had been brought to its notice to establish any other ground warranting continued retention of the revolver. "In these circumstances, the mere pendency of appeals against acquittal cannot by itself justify withholding the return of the revolver, without examining the petitioner's claim on its merits," the court said. It added that the prolonged deprivation of the weapon had directly affected Yunus's livelihood, given that he worked in the private security sector and needed the revolver to obtain employment in that field....