P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "cr. P. C. ") seeking for a direction to the opposite parties for the release of seized items of properties which had been seized from the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act in connection with 2 (c) CC Case No. 103/75. The seizure-list has been annexed as Annexure-1 which includes, inter alia, considerable quantity of coconut oil, til oil, groundnut oil, venaspati and mustard oil. Certain other items were also seized, but some of those items were earlier returned and some items were sold, the sale proceeds of which have been deposited in the Court. These seized articles had been kept in Zima of one Srinibas Pradhan who was working as the Secretary, Balugaon Regional Co-operative Marketing Society. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was acquitted in the said case under Section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, the appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Puri) passed an order directing return of the seized articles to the petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid order, the articles having not been returned to the petitioner, another application was filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda, who vide his order dated 18-8-1990 directed return of the articles which had not been sold and further directed that the sale proceeds deposited in treasury be returned to the petitioner. In spite of the above order, the articles could not be returned to the petitioner as the Zimadar had failed to produce the goods. By order dated 18-8-1990, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had exonerated the proceeding initiated against the ex-Supervisor of Supply, as it was found that the articles though handed over to the succeeding officers, had been spoiled due to lapse of time. As already noted, ultimately the Magistrate directed the refund of sale proceeds deposited vide Treasury Challan No. 4, dated 6-4-1976 and further directed for return of the various quantities of oil of different kinds seized under the seizure-list. ( 3 ) THE prayer of the petitioner in this application is to direct return of the seized articles. As already noted, ultimately the Magistrate directed the refund of sale proceeds deposited vide Treasury Challan No. 4, dated 6-4-1976 and further directed for return of the various quantities of oil of different kinds seized under the seizure-list. ( 3 ) THE prayer of the petitioner in this application is to direct return of the seized articles. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel appearing for the R. C. M. S. and after going through the lower Court records, it is evident that the articles which had been seized cannot be returned to the petitioner in specie as the articles have been sold or damaged in the meantime, but there is no difficulty in regard to the sale proceeds which have been deposited in the treasury and the same should be returned to the petitioner, if not already refunded in the meantime. ( 4 ) SO far as the various quantities of oil which had been seized are concerned, the said articles cannot be returned. The question is as to whether the petitioner should be asked to file a suit claiming damages against the State, or an appropriate direction should be given for paying an amount approximately representing the money value of the seized articles. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1991 Orissa 197 (State of Orissa v. Ramachandra Das), where direction had been made for return of the articles. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that even though the articles had been admittedly seized, since the articles in specie cannot be returned, the application for return of the articles has become infructuous and, at any rate, a suit for damages may not be maintainable as cause of action relates to sovereign act of the State. For the aforesaid purpose, the counsel for the State has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1039 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 144) (M/s. Kastury Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh ). The said decision of the Supreme Court was also considered in the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1991 Orissa 197. For the aforesaid purpose, the counsel for the State has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1039 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 144) (M/s. Kastury Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh ). The said decision of the Supreme Court was also considered in the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1991 Orissa 197. In view of the decision of the Orissa High Court, there cannot be any doubt that after acquittal, the petitioner is entitled to get return of the seized articles. Even though the tins containing oil which had actually been seized cannot be returned as the same has either been spoiled or lost in the meantime, similar quantity of oil can be directed to be returned, or the State can be directed to pay the money value of the articles. The articles had been seized about 24 years back. A direction to return similar quantity of oil at the present time may not be appropriate keeping in view the huge difference in the prices of the articles concerned. Having regard to all these aspects and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I think interest of justice would be served by directing that in addition to the amount deposited in the treasury as per Challan No. 4, dated 6-4-1976 which should be refunded if not already done in the meantime, a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) may be paid to the petitioner by way of compensation. This amount has been arrived at by keeping in view the prices in the year 1976 and the present prices of oil. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for payment of compensation and stated that his client is not interested to file a suit, this order is passed to avoid any unnecessary litigation. It is made clear that the petitioner cannot file any suit claiming any further damages. ( 5 ) THE next question is as to who should pay the aforesaid amount. The State was the prosecutor and the property had been seized by the officer of the State. Even though it was kept in Zima of one employee of the R. C. M. S. , it is no doubt true that the said employee was a Government servant deputed by the State and the articles were being handed over to other employees of the State from time to time. Even though it was kept in Zima of one employee of the R. C. M. S. , it is no doubt true that the said employee was a Government servant deputed by the State and the articles were being handed over to other employees of the State from time to time. Even otherwise, R. C. M. S. is also an instrumentality of the State. The Society as such was not the Zimadar. Therefore, it would be unjust to direct the Society to pay the compensation and in the interest of justice, compensation should be paid by the State. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed with the following directions :- (i) The deposited amount be refunded to the petitioner, if not already done in the meantime; (ii) A sum of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) be paid as compensation; (iii) Since the said amount is being paid on the basis of specific request of the counsel of the petitioner on the basis of the submission that no suit would be filed, it is made clear that petitioner would not be entitled to file a suit claiming any further damages; (iv) The amount should be paid within a period of three months from today. However, if the amount is not paid within three months, it will become payable with Twelve per cent interest thereafter. Order accordingly