JUDGMENT 1. - I have gone through the order dated 1-2-1980 of Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City. I will presently show that this petition u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. deserved to be allowed on 30th Sept, 1979, Trolley bearing registered No. R.R.M. 5246 was attached with Tractor No R J.S. 1331. The tractor met an accident on that date and a case under S. 279 and 337 IPC was registered against one Peer Mohd. the driver of the tractor at police station Sadar, Jaipur. The tractor alongwith the trolley was seized. Babulal filed an application u/s 431 Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate for custody of the trolley on the ground that he was the owner of it. The learned Magistrate Dismissed his application. 2. The only ground which prevailed with the Magistrate in rejecting the application of Babulal for custody of trolley is that Babulal has been unable to satisfy him that he is proprietor of Jaipur Auto Agro Service, in whose name the trolley was registered. The approach of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be correct. Alongwith application u/s. 451 Cr. P.C. for custody of the trolley, affidavit of Babulal and of Basant Kumar, the registered owner of the tractor, with which the trolley was attached, were filed. It appears from them that Babulal is the sole proprietor of Jaipur Auto Agro Service and the trolley had been given by him to Basant Kumar on hire. The police also had no objection if the trolley was given in custody of Babulal. No other person came before the Magistrate to claim the custody of the trolley. Under section 451 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate only has to make an order for proper custody of the property when the same is produced before him during inquiry or trial. Such order only enunes till inquiry or trial concludes. Thus it does not appear to be a sound exercise of discretion by the Magistrate in refusing the custody of the trolley to Babulal. It is common knowledge that there are no arrangements in the Police Station for Safe and proper custody of the property seized during the investigation and the property remain lying in open and is damaged. 3. I am, therefore, of the opinion in refusing the custody of the trolley to the petitioner Babulal, the Magistrate has not acted in the interest of justice. 4. 3. I am, therefore, of the opinion in refusing the custody of the trolley to the petitioner Babulal, the Magistrate has not acted in the interest of justice. 4. I will, therefore, allow the petition and set aside the order of the Magistrate. I allow the application of Babulal for the custody of the trolley No. R.R.M. 5246. It is hereby ordered that the Magistrate shall give the above numbered trolley to Babulal pending the conclusion of inquiry of trial, if any. The Magistrate shall give the custody to Babulal provided he gives A Supradnama to the Magistrate in sum of Rs. 10,000/- undertaking to produce the trolley in the same condition before the Magistrate or any other court as and when ordered to do so.Petition allowed. *******