( 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. 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/docu