ORDER N. Ananda , J.—This Petitioner has called in question the order dated 17.8.2004 passed by learned IXth Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in Crime No. 194/2004 of Chickpet Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. 2. In the course of investigation certain infringed articles including the hard disk were seized from the possession of the accused. Both complainant and accused filed applications under Sections 451 and 457 for interim custody of seized property. The learned Magistrate directed return of computer and its accessories excluding the hard disc, CDs and the scanner to the interim custody of the accused subject to certain conditions and application filed by complainant was dismissed. 3. I have heard Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, Learned Counsel for Petitioner and Sri Mallinath S. Maka, for Respondents 2 and 3 and Govt. Pleader for 1st Respondent. 4. The Learned Counsel for Petitioner referring to Section 66 of the Copy Right Act, 1977 has contended the infringed copies and other infringed material shall be delivered to the owner of the copy right. The learned Magistrate committed an error in granting interim custody of the infringed material in the accused. 5. On careful consideration of Section 66 of the Copy Right Act, I am of the opinion the provisions contained therein will have to be considered for disposal of properties at the conclusion of the trial. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has invoked Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure to return the computer and other accessories which do not form infringed copies to the interim custody of accused from whose possession the properties were seized. The interim custody of these properties is subject to certain conditions embarked in the order. Therefore, the submission by Learned Counsel for Petitioner, Section 66 of the Act has been ignored by the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted. As the order relates to interim custody of properties, this Court under Section 482 need not go into the details of the order. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the learned Magistrate. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the case is pending in C.C. No. 2202/2004 and the trial is in progress. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate could call for the properties if they are required for trial as and when such a request is made by the prosecution. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the case is pending in C.C. No. 2202/2004 and the trial is in progress. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate could call for the properties if they are required for trial as and when such a request is made by the prosecution. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed.