VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE question of some importance and frequent occurrence that this Court is incidentally called upon to touch for some guidance to the trial court in this petition is - "why and in what manner the learned Magistrate should activate themselves in attending to and deciding the applications under Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to the interim custody of the muddamal-goods seized by the Police during the course of the investigation and lying with it pending the trial ?" ( 2 ) IN brief, the grievance made by the petitioner M/s. Dhanlaxmi industries, a third party and a bona fide purchaser of muddamal Lathe machine - (without notice and having paid a consideration thereof) in Misc. Criminal Application is to the effect that though as far back as on 1 4/12/1988, it has submitted an application under Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, court No. 15, Ahmedabad, praying inter alia that the muddamal machine in question seized from its possession be returned to it on any reasonable terms and conditions as the same was unnecessarily getting junked and yet the same for whatever reason has gone in cold storage and remained unattended and undisposed so far all these two and half long years. ( 3 ) IT was contended before me by Mr. A. D. Padival, the learned advocate for the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid application, the learned Magistrate has called for the report from the investigating agency which came to be submitted on 29/12/1988. It was further pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that thereafter also yet another application came to be filed by the petitioner on 26/07/1989, which has also remained unattended lying in a cold storage. It is under these circumstances that feeling exasperated, the petitioner has rushed to this Court to give some directions to the learned Magistrate to hear and decide the said application as early as possible, as the muddamal article which is lying in open in the ellisbridge Police Station would be further severely damaged due to monsoon to its greatest disadvantage. ( 4 ) EARLIER when this application came up for admission before this court, after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the record and proceedings of the case were called for from the trial Court. ( 4 ) EARLIER when this application came up for admission before this court, after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the record and proceedings of the case were called for from the trial Court. On receipt of the same today on perusal, it appears that the grievance voiced on behalf of the petitioner is well-founded and deserves immediate redressal. The aforesaid two applications filed by the petitioner though found to be duly placed in the record, quite surprisingly, are neither referred to in the Rojkam proceedings, not they have been given their due exhibit. It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Padival that in fact on the basis of the said application dated 14/12/1988 that the learned Magistrate had called for the report from the Investigating Agency, which came to be submitted on 2 9/12/1988. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the said applications were not submitted before the learned Magistrate. The question then under the circumstances is if that is the situation, why the said applications are neither referred to in the Rojkam proceedings and nor given their due exhibit numbers ? Why, though the Investigating Agency has already submitted its report on 29/12/1988 and thereafter also, even one more application came to be submitted by the petitioner on 2 6/07/1989, the same has also not been attended to so far and decided ? it further appears that after an application dated 26/07/1989, came to be submitted by the petitioner the petitioner itself also appears to have fallen in deep slumber till the time it wake up to suddenly rush to this Court by filing the present application. This Court can only hope that in future appropriate care will be taken by the trial Court in seeing that the rojkam proceedings are property maintained by giving appropriate exhibit numbers to the applications/documents etc. submitted before it and hear and decide the same at the earliest within the reasonable time. It may be stated that the maintenance of the Rojkam proceedings and giving of exhibits to the applications/documents etc. though are ordinarily done by the Bench clerk, none the less, the ultimate accountability of the learned Magistrate is not less and the same is never dispensed with. It may be stated that the maintenance of the Rojkam proceedings and giving of exhibits to the applications/documents etc. though are ordinarily done by the Bench clerk, none the less, the ultimate accountability of the learned Magistrate is not less and the same is never dispensed with. Thus, in all such matters, the learned Magistrate as far as possible must exercise due vigilance and control by carefully checking the record and proceedings instead of being a mere mechanical signatory to whatever has been submitted by the concerned clerk to sign it. It may also further incidentally be stated that for not taking up such types of applications and deciding them as expeditiously as possible, the blame cannot be entirely placed at the door of the trial Court as there are very many contributory factors intervening in-between like the strike by the advocates, unwarranted adjournments on one ground or the other, as a result of the proceedings protracting trickeries of the litigants, huge of work, work pressure and above all limited number of the Courts to attend the work which delays, protracts and overburdens the Court proceedings. Nonetheless, it hardly requires to be impressed that whenever such applications pertaining to the disposals of muddamal articles are filed before the Court under Sec. 451 of the Code, it is the foremost duty of the Magistrate to see that the same are attended to in the right earnest and disposed of within the reasonable time. It should not be forgotten that Sec. 451 of the Code pertains to "order for custody and disposal of the property pending the trial" (emphasis supplied) as observed in the case of Prakasham v. K. P. Pankajkshan, reported in 1985 Cri. LJ 951 (Kerala), wherein it is observed as under :"sec. 451 enables the Magistrate to provide for interim custody of property pending conclusion of enquiry or trial. It is only a temporary arrangement and what is contemplated is only an interim provision to provide custody with a proper person as the Court thinks fit with liability to produce the property back as and when directed by the Court. The maximum duration of the arrangement is only till conclusion of the enquiry or trial. It follows that the arrangement is only temporary and the main object is to protect or preserve the property pending trial. The maximum duration of the arrangement is only till conclusion of the enquiry or trial. It follows that the arrangement is only temporary and the main object is to protect or preserve the property pending trial. Even if the person entrusted with interim custody is the owner his possession or custody during the period of entrustment is only as representative of the Court and not in his independent right. "further the reason as to why the learned Magistrate as an impending necessity must evince special awareness and active interest in attending to and deciding such applications hardly requires to be highlighted as we all well know that by not deciding such application and allowing the muddamal articles to get junked, damaged and lost, it is not only a question either of any damage or loss to the muddamal in question or the parties claiming it only, as keeping in mind the overall perspective it is also a loss to the society as well, to which none can afford to be light and oblivious. No machine or for that purpose no such valuable goods are produced without the investment of the time, money, energy, industry, labour etc. Further, by keeping such machine idle and unproductive, there is yet one more head of loss in the sense that the benefits of the production which such machine if put to production can bring about if the same is not put out of operation would be denied to both the owner by way of profit and the society at large by loss of production. This gives us an idea as to what happens when inadvertantly even one sleeps and remains indolent in disposing of such applications pending enquiry or trial. The aforesaid perspective, sense and sensibility should never be afforded to be lost sight of by anyone and therefore the Court proceedings should be conducted in such a way that the same protects, preserves individual as well as overall social interest. Merely because the muddamal article is the subjectmatter of some unfortunate criminal matter, the same should not be looked down with an eye of contempt, stigma and punishment allowing it to suffer in silence by getting rusting out as some times accused are looked upon. Merely because the muddamal article is the subjectmatter of some unfortunate criminal matter, the same should not be looked down with an eye of contempt, stigma and punishment allowing it to suffer in silence by getting rusting out as some times accused are looked upon. Accordingly in such matters, at the cost of repetition it may be stated that both the Court as well as the concerned investigating agency are bound to bear in mind the sense of awareness and activism that is to say (1) whenever any such application regarding disposal of muddamal property is submitted before it, same must be attended to and decided by it at the earliest within a reasonable time, and (2) the investigating officer in whose possession such muddamal properties are lying is also expected to exercise that much care and anxiety of protecting and preserving the same its proper condition as is ordinarily expected of from any individual owner of such property. In such cases, both the Court and investigating agency have a serious public duty to be performed and performance of such duty means accountability to the cause, conscience and the public. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no difficulty in accepting the request of Mr. Padival, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the application pending before the learned Magistrate for disposal of the muddamal article in question be directed to be disposed of as early as possible. Mr. S. D. Patel, the learned A. P. P. also agrees to the same. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make one more application before the learned Magistrate for fixing up an agreed date between the parties for hearing and deciding the earlier applications dated 14/12/1988 and 26/07/1989. In order to obviate any difficulty, the petitioner shall serve and advance copy of such application to parties to the proceedings by stating therein the date on which it proposts to move the learned Magistrate for getting the convenient agreed fixed date for hearing. On such application being made and the parties appearing before the learned Magistrate, he is directed to give a fixed date for hearing and deciding the aforesaid two applications and thereafter shall dispose of the same on merits according to law as expeditiously as possible. On such application being made and the parties appearing before the learned Magistrate, he is directed to give a fixed date for hearing and deciding the aforesaid two applications and thereafter shall dispose of the same on merits according to law as expeditiously as possible. Since two and half years have already passed and the muddamal machine is lying in open and getting junked with monsoon looming large, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said applications preferably on or before any time within a period of seven weeks of the application made by the petitioner as directed above. ( 6 ) IN this view of the aforesaid direction, the learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. The office is directed to send R and p to the trial Court immediately. Direct service permitted. .