Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate Saharsa dated 8th November, 1979, by which he refused the prayer of the petitioner for return of E.C.G. machine (Ext. I) for the safe custody during the trial. 2. The petitioner J.P. Saraogi is at present posted as the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital Dumka, district Santhal Parganas. In the year 1977, he was posted at Saharsa. On the night of 26th June, 1977, a theft took place in his house in course of which a number of articles including the E.C.G. machine were stolen away. First information against unknown thieves was lodged at the police station on 27th June, 1977 by the petitioner. The police, on completion of investigation, submitted final report as no clue with regard to the thieves was available although the case of theft was true. In the meantime, the petitioner wrote to Messrs Seimens India Limited, Calcutta, which had once repaired his E.C.G. machine, about the theft of the machine and requested the Company to inform him of the same if and when it was brought to the Company for repair etc. Some time thereafter the Company wrote to the petitioner that the E.C.G. machine, which was said to have been stolen. had been given to the Company for repair. The police re-opened the case and the stolen E.C.G. machine was seized from Messrs Seimen India Limited, Calcutta. On an application made by the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, by his order dated 28th December, 1978, allowed the machine to be given to the informant petitioner for safe custody during the pendency of the case on his executing an indemnity bond of Rs. 10,000/-, and on undertaking being given to keep, the machine in proper order and to produce it before the Court as and when required. Thus the petitioner received the machine for safe custody during inquiry and trial. 3. The hearing of the case was taken up on 5th November, 1979, and the said machine was produced in court and was marked material Exhibit I. The petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate for return of the machine to him. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 8th November, 1979, refused the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, this application. 4. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 8th November, 1979, refused the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, this application. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that no one besides the petitioner claims to be the owner of the machine. It is further urged that the machine is of great use in petitioners professional work as a doctor and not only he but his patients also win greatly suffer in absence of the machine. 5. Learned counsel for accused Jamal Ahmed (opposite party No. 1) supports the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. His alternative argument is that in case the E.C.G. machine is given to the petitioner for safe custody, the learned Magistrate may take indemnity bond as well as an undertaking from the petitioner that the identity of the machine would not be tampered with and that it would be produced before the Court as and when required. In the circumstances of the case. learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to the machine being given to the petitioner, for safe custody on his furnishing indemnity band and the undertaking as suggested by learned counsel for the accused opposite party No. 1. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate has refused the prayer 6f the petitioner mainly on the ground that. Rule 131 of the Criminal Code Rules framed by this Court, is a bar to the return of the machine, which is an exhibit, to the petitioner. Rule 131 lays down that no article, which has been admitted in evidence, shall be returned or destroyed until the period for appeal has expired or until the appeal has been disposed of, if an appeal has been preferred against the conviction and the sentence. It is manifest that Rule 131 does not envisage interim Custody of goods produced before Court during inquiry or trial. Rule 131 has the force of law and it has to be followed by subordinate Courts, subject, of course to the provisions of the Criminal procedure Code. It is manifest that Rule 131 does not envisage interim Custody of goods produced before Court during inquiry or trial. Rule 131 has the force of law and it has to be followed by subordinate Courts, subject, of course to the provisions of the Criminal procedure Code. Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for interim custody of goods pending conclusion of inquiry or trial, reads :- "When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial.............." Section 451 of the Code applies even to a property which has been exhibited. Of course, it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a thing, which has been exhibited, should or should not be given to any party for safe custody during inquiry or trial on furnishing indemnity bond and necessary undertaking. 7 In the instant case, no other person has come forward to claim the E.C.G. machine in question as his property; even accused Jamal (Opposite Party No. 1) has not claimed up till now this machine to be his property. It is needless to say that this machine is of great use to the petitioner who is a doctor. His ailing patients may also suffer, if this machine is not returned to him Under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the application is allowed. The learned Magistrate will give the E.C.G. machine, which is Exhibit I, to the petitioner for safe custody during the trial on his executing indemnity bond of Rs. 10,000.00, and on his giving undertaking to produce the machine before the Court as and whim required and not to tamper with the identity of the machine. 9. Let the lower court records be sent down without delay.