ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is before this Court in the following circumstances: On 6-8-2011, one Sri Sunil Savadi, Police Inspector, Belgaum, had received information that, a person would come to Hire-Bagewadi bus stand and he was carrying stolen silver material intending to sell the same. Therefore, the Police Inspector, along with his staff, had apprehended the petitioner, on noticing that he was carrying silver in a carry bag near Hire-Bagewadi bus stand. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and the silver weighing about 2.44 kgs. was seized from his custody. On the same day a case was registered in Crime No. 104 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity). The petitioner is accused 3 in the above case. He was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the proceedings. He had filed an application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belgaum under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking release of the seized silver ingots. The petitioner had produced proof of purchase by him of the said silver at Belgaum on 4-8-2011 and had also tendered evidence of the owner of the shop, from whom he had purchased the silver. The application was rejected by the Court below, on the ground that the petitioner, who is accused 3 is the main accused and that the silver ingots are required for the purpose of identification during the trial. Therefore, he was held disentitled to the custody of the silver ingots. Being aggrieved by this, a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court had also rejected his petition and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out, that the Courts below have taken a consistent view, that the silver in question is suspected to have been stolen from unknown persons. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner sought to produce proof of having purchased the same and had produced bills in that regard. The Courts below have taken a view that, no injustice would be caused, if the silver is kept in the custody of the Court, till after the trial and have rejected the petitions. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner sought to produce proof of having purchased the same and had produced bills in that regard. The Courts below have taken a view that, no injustice would be caused, if the silver is kept in the custody of the Court, till after the trial and have rejected the petitions. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ILR 2003 Kar. 2243 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 638 : (2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003 SCC (Cri.) 1943, wherein the Apex Court, while considering a similar situation, where articles were kept at the police station for a long period, but not adhered to the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C., which created difficulties of keeping the articles in safe custody and that a speedier procedure was required to be evolved either by the Court or under the rules for disposal of muddamal articles, which are kept at various police stations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thought it fit to issue directions in order to lessen the burden to the Courts as well as the police stations and that, there may be no scope for misappropriation or misplacement of valuable articles. While drawing reference to Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., held that the powers under Section451 of the Cr.P.C., should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously, which would serve the purpose of the owner of the article and he would not suffer because of it remaining unused or of its misappropriation, as one of the reasons in arriving at a conclusion, that the seized articles kept in the custody of the Court had to be considered for release. The Court also drew attention to an earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Basavva v. State of Mysore and Another 1977 (2) Kar. L.J. 147 (SC) : ILR 1977 Kar. 925 (SC) : AIR 1977 SC 1749 : (1977) 4 SCC 358 : 1977 SCC (Cri.) 598 : 1977 Cri. L.J. 1141 (SC), where the Apex Court had dealt with the case, where seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing. L.J. 1141 (SC), where the Apex Court had dealt with the case, where seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing. The question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context the Court had observed: 4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case the police always acts under the direct control of, the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. Thereafter, the Apex Court had spelt out the guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 451with regard to valuable articles and currency notes as follows: 11. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. Thereafter, the Apex Court had spelt out the guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 451with regard to valuable articles and currency notes as follows: 11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. at the earliest. 12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after.-- (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security. 13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should be see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. 14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimants, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchanama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. In view of the above directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court, but in the present case on hand, as the allegation against the present petitioner is only based on suspicion of the petitioner having stolen the silver in question, the above procedure, as laid down by the Apex Court ought to be followed by the Court below, to the extent it would be applicable, at its discretion and shall release the silver in favour of the petitioner on such terms and conditions as it may impose. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.