Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for a writ of mandamus, commanding the Superintendent of Police, Siwan (respondent No. 3) and the officer-in-charge. Town Police Station (respondent No. 4) to abide by the direction of the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2) to deliver the Webly Scot make Revolver No. 31489 to the petitioner, which was seized by the police. A prayer has also been made for a direction to the State Government or other respondent-authorities to pay appropriate compensation for harassment and the loss which the petitioner had to suffer by their wrongful act. 2. Petitioner had a licence bearing No. 169/73 for the revolver in question. During the 1989 Parliamentary Election he was awarded contract work of barricating of counting Pandals by the Building Construction Department. He was also granted Entry Card by the competant authority for making arrangement and supervision of the contract work. But unfortunately on 28.11.1989 while he was supervising the work, the officer-in-charge of Town Police Station on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, seized the revolver and live cartridges. A Sanha was also registered under Secs. 107 and 151 of the Indian Penal Code on that very day at about 4.30 p.m. Later the police also lodged a First Information Report on 5.1.1990 against the petitioner under Sec. 188 of the Indian Penal Code alleging violation of the order under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. However, the said order was also dropped on 24.6.1990 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on being satisfied with the show cause that the petitioner was not at fault. 3. As Inspite of best efforts the revolver of the petitioner was not released by the police authorities, he field Misc. Petition No. 11 of 1990 before the District Magistrate, Chapra. The matter was heard and ultimately on 4.11.1992 the District Magistrate directed the Superintendent of Police to obtain the revolver from Sri Kauleshwar Mishra, the then officer-in-charge of the Police Station and return the same to the petitioner. In compliance to the said order, the Inspector of Police Station, holding charge of the Police Station, submitted a report before the District Magistrate stating that Sri Kauleshwar Mishra at the time of giving charge of the Malkhana had not handed over the revolver in question. 4. In compliance to the said order, the Inspector of Police Station, holding charge of the Police Station, submitted a report before the District Magistrate stating that Sri Kauleshwar Mishra at the time of giving charge of the Malkhana had not handed over the revolver in question. 4. It further appears that on 9.4.1993 said Kauleshwar Mishra had lodged a First Information Report stating that on 16.8.1990 while he was handing over charge of he goods lying in the Malkhana to Madan Mohan Sharma, Inspector, he was asked by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to go to bring the cassets, which were recovered in a theft case. When Mr. Mishra came back with cassetes he found the revolver missing which was kept on the table along with other materials. He, therefore, on that very day lodged a case under Sec. 380 at the Police Station against unknown for the theft of the revolver. 5. It appears from the materials brought on record that Superintendent of Police had also written a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range with a request to start a departmental proceeding against the concerned officers, but no responsibility appears to have been fixed against anybody. 6. But it can not be denied that inspite of the direction of the District Magistrate, no positive clue about the missing revolver was produced. The District Magistrate, therefore, held that petitioner was completely innocent and had nothing to do with the departmental proceeding even started against the concerned police officers. Accordingly he disposed of the Misc. Case on 4.5.1994 by order, contained in Annexure-10, with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to take steps to hand over the revolver to the petitioner or in alternative steps be taken to recover the price of the revolver from the gratuity etc. of Sri Mishra, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. Since he was superannuated. But inspite of such a direction of the Collector, neither the petitioner was given the possession of the revolver nor any amount of compensation as awarded by the District Magistrate, was paid. However, having no alternative, he filed the present writ application. 7. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondented Nos. 3 and 4, but no attempt has been made to justify the seizure of the petitioners revolver. However, having no alternative, he filed the present writ application. 7. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondented Nos. 3 and 4, but no attempt has been made to justify the seizure of the petitioners revolver. However, an attempt has been made that the theft of revolver as alleged in the First Information Report of Sri Mishra was true, but no clue of the stolen revolver was traced out, therefore, in spite of the order of the District Magistrate, it could not be returned to the petitioner. 8. From the facts, noticed above, there appears no disputes that the petitioner was a licensee of the revolver, which was seized by the police authority on the relevant date and time. This is also not in dispute that the District Magistrate, Chapra, after hearing all the parties and having perused relevant materials disposed of Misc. Case with a direction to the Superintendent of Police as well as the Officer-in-charge to hand over the possession of the revolver or in alternative make payment of the price of such revolver after recovery from the gratuity etc. of Sri Mishra. According to the police authorities also, amittedly the revolver was seized by Sri Mishra unauthorisingly and without any valid ground. The alleged theft according to Sri Mishra was committed at a time when the Deputy Superintendent of Police and other police officers were present at the police station. 9. At the very outset I may mention that no proper care appears to have been taken by the authorities to protect and preserve the revolver of the petitioner, which was illegally seized, it would further appear that the seizure was totally illegal and unauthorised since no attempt was made to produce the revolver before any court. The story with regard to the theft of revolver as alleged by Sri Mishra, cannot justify the defence of the authorities. Even the direction of the District Magistrate to the Superintendent of Police as back as on 4.5.1994 (Annexure-10) to make an attempt to return the revolver or an effort to pay the price, was not cared, which forced the petitioner to run from pillar to post. Therefore, in my view, in the background of the facts stated above, it would be a fit case in which the State Government be directed to compensate the loss of the petitioners. Therefore, in my view, in the background of the facts stated above, it would be a fit case in which the State Government be directed to compensate the loss of the petitioners. Similar views, as above, appears to have been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Prasad Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1998 (3) PLJR 351 . 10. In normal course I would have directed the respondents to hand over a revolver of the same make to the petitioner, taut I was told by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties that presently sale of Webly Scot revolver is not available in India. According to the petitioners counsel, the market value of such revolver is not less than Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs), which was however, disputed by the counsel for the State. In my view also, having regard to the year of the purchase of the revolver, a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs) would be too high. 11. I, therefore, taking into consideration the facts, stated above, allow this writ application with a direction to the State Government to pay the petitioner a cash of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (rupees one lakh) or a revolver of the same make be handed over within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar. The State shall, however, be at liberty to fix responsibility against the erring officers.