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 inte