JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. A letter received from the petitioner was treated as writ petition by this Court. Grievance of the petitioner is that there was a theft in his house and Criminal Case No. 16/2005 under Section 379 was registered against the accused-Bhagwan. In that criminal case, the accused was acquitted and by operative part (3), the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 1, Chikhali directed the State Government through Collector, Buldhana to compensate the complainant i.e. the present petitioner for the loss of gold necklace weighing 17.950 gm. from the custody of the Police Station concerned where it was kept as muddemal property. That judgment was delivered on 12.02.2013 but none bothered to implement the said operative order in respect of the complainant-petitioner. 2. We have issued notice pursuant to which affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the District Collector, Buldhana. We quote relevant paragraph (4) from his affidavit, which reads thus: "4. I say and submit that the District Superintendent of Police by his D.O. Letter dated 23.12.2014 informed the District Magistrate that, the office of the District Superintendent has initiated the action to recover the amount as per market value of the seized Muddemal from the salary of concerned Police Head Constable/1339 Sheikh Shabbir and Police Head Constable/1316 Ravindra Rane in equal installments and the same shall be paid to complainant. It is further submitted that, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Deul gaon-Raja is conducting primary enquiry in the matter and disciplinary action will be taken against the delinquent employees." 3. We appreciate the efforts taken by District Collector, Buldhana so also Superintendent of Police, Buldhana. However, statement in paragraph 4 of the affidavit above that after recovery, the amount would be paid to the petitioner-complainant, is not acceptable to us. The reason is that it is not fault of the complainant-petitioner that the property that was seized by Police and that was stored in the Police Station as Muddemal property was lost while in the custody of the Police Station. Therefore, to ask the petitioner-complainant to wait till the recovery is made in accordance with law from the erring police officials is again punishing the petitioner-complainant. We do not countenance such a stance. Therefore, to ask the petitioner-complainant to wait till the recovery is made in accordance with law from the erring police officials is again punishing the petitioner-complainant. We do not countenance such a stance. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner should be first paid the amount of compensation as per the present market value and, thereafter, the process to recover the same should be undertaken that too by adopting the process of holding enquiry and quantifying the amount to be recovered from their salary could be taken since such an action is likely to fail ultimately in the judicial review. We, therefore, think that the District Superintendent of Police, Buldana should take steps in accordance with service law rather than straightway recovering the amounts from the salary of the police staff in order to avoid another litigation. 4. That being so, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 49/2015 is allowed. (ii) District Collector as well as Superintendent of Police, Buldana shall take steps to first make payment of compensation, at which they arrive at as per present market value, to the complainant-petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today. (iii) Steps for recovery of the amount from the concerned police personnel be taken, in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner shall be informed to collect the negotiable instrument. (v) Professional fees of Mrs. S. P. Kulkarni, learned Appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs. 1500/-. Rule made absolute in the above terms.