IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.519 of 2007 DIGAL @ SHAILENDRA KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 4 27.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Hilsa, Nalanda in Criminal Revision No.53 of 2002, G.R.No.1450 of 1999, Trial No.1304 of 2006 arising out of Chandi P.S.Case No.285 of 1999 the Ayurvedic medicines, which was worth lac of rupees, so seized was not released by the Officer-Incharge, Nagar Nausa P.S. in the district of Nalanda. The facts of the case in brief is that the police seized huge quantity of Ayurvedic liquor as well as 36 sachets of 400 ML each, and 78 sachets of 200 ML each of country made liquors, from the upper room of the shop of the petitioner. Thereafter a seizure list was prepared and Chandi P.S.Case No.285 of 1999 was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized articles were not a V.D. wine rather it was a ‘Sura’ which is used in preparation of Ayurvedic medicines. He further submits that the petitioner is a bonafide licensee agent of Ayurvedic medicines and absolute owner of the seized Ayurvedic medicines. He submits that no license is required for selling these medicines under the Excise Act. The petitioner filed a revision application against the order dated 23.9.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hilsa refusing to release the seized articles. In revision the police also endorsed no objection for the release of the seized medicines in favour - 2 - of the petitioner. The revisional court by order dated 19.7.2003 directed the Officer Incharge to release Ayurvedic Medicines in favour of the petitioner on executing indemnity bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hilsa. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid order, the seized Ayurvedic medicines have not been released in his favour. Learned counsel for the State filed counter affidavit not denying the fact that the Ayurvedic medicine in question was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner and were brought to Nagar Nausa P.S. and the same was kept in the Malkhana of Nagar Nausa P.S. He further submits that due to heavy rain, the roof of the Malkhana of Nagar Nausa P.S. has fallen down causing destruction of all the seized articles and other seized articles of other cases which were kept therein as would be evident from Station Diary Entry No.523 dated 31.8.2001 of Nagar Nausa P.S. He submits that as the seized Ayurvedic medicines stood destroyed, the order passed by the revisional court could not be complied with. It appears that the aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of the revisional court while it was considering the issue in question. The State ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the revisional court that the medicine in question has already been destroyed. It is an admitted fact that the seized Ayurvedic medicines, - 3 - KHAN as claimed by the petitioner, have been destroyed while it was kept in the police Malkhana. The respondents police are fully responsible for safe keeping of seized goods. In the circumstances, the State would be liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as admitted the seized materials got destroyed in police lock up. It would appear from the order of the revisional court that the seized Ayurvedic medicines were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner on executing indemnity bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hilsa. This gives us some clue for determining the value of seized goods. The aforesaid quantum of indemnity bond was ordered five years ago in 2003. The price of materials has appreciated more or less by at least 100% in last five years. In view of the aforesaid fact, the respondent State is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner subject to the criminal case ending in his acquittal, within three months thereof otherwise the State would be liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum. It would be open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for payment of difference in amount and damages, interest etc. in case he finds that the goods lost is of greater value. As the case is of the year 1999, the trial court is also directed to complete the trial within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. (S.P.Singh,J) - 4 -