JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - A brief backdrop of the case, leading to this application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that the Station House Officer of Naya Ram Nagar Police Station, on the basis of his self statement, registered Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 93 of 2012 on 26.07.2012 for offences under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "UAP Act") and Sections 25(1-AA)/(1-AAA), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. According to the prosecution case, accused Kundan Mandal and other named persons were reported to be moving in the area to supply arms and explosives to the Nuxals. After making an entry in the station diary, the informant along with the police team proceeded towards NH-80. Near Sweta Bengal Sweets, the police put an ambush and noticed that a vehicle was entering in the lane by the side of the aforesaid Sweets shop. Looking at the police party, three persons from the vehicle started fleeing and managed their escape. One of them was identified as Kundan Mandal. One Dilip Kumar Sah and Vishal Kumar were arrested by the police and they disclosed that Kundan Mandal, Kundan Jha and another Vikash Kumar, son of Kailash Tanti were the persons, who fled away. Nothing was recovered from the physical possession of the arrested persons. However, from the vehicle, a pistol along with other accessories were recovered for which the arrested accused could not show any paper. Besides that some Nuxal literature were also seized from the vehicle and the arrested persons disclosed that they used to supply arms to the Nuxals.

3. A seizure of the seized vehicle on which the accused persons were travelling, the firearm and its accessories and Nuxal literature was made. On the same day i.e. 26.07.2012, the house of Kundan Mandal was searched from where laptop, cash, ATM cards, Pan cards, 34 deposit bonds in Sahara India Family, Pass Book of bank accounts in Punjab National Bank and other banks including Gramin Bank were seized. On 26.08.2012, a third seizure was made in respect of the tractor from the house of Kundan Mandal.

4. By letter dated 21.08.2012, the Investigating Officer sought for approval of the seizure from the Designated Authority under Section 25 of the UAP Act, 1967. On the same day i.e. 21.08.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Munger wrote a letter to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna for ex post facto approval of the seizure made above, though, Section 25 of the UAP Act requires prior approval of the Director General of Police by the Investigating Officer making seizure. The seizure was confirmed by order dated 17.10.2012 in Case No. 05 of 2012 by the Designated Authority-cum-Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar vide order at Annexure P/6.

5. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.10.2012 in Cr. Appeal No. 130 of 2012 filed under Section 25(6) of the UAP Act before the learned Sessions Judge, Munger. The Appellate Court vide order dated 10.01.2013 dismissed the appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the Designated Authority. Then the petitioners challenged the appellate court's order before this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1197 of 2012. In the writ application, vide order dated 24.09.2013, this Court directed the learned Sessions Judge to re-hear and decide Cr. Appeal No. 130 of 2012 on merit. Thereafter, the aforesaid criminal appeal was re-registered as Cr. Appeal No. 130A of 2012 and the appeal was dismissed on merit by the impugned order dated 03.11.2018. Hence, this criminal revision application.

6. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the entire exercise of action of seizure from the house of accused Kundan Mandal and its confirmation by the Designated Authority suffers from arbitrariness and illegality. Section 25 of the UAP Act does not apply to offences commit