JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner, by way of this application, seeks direction to the opposite parties to release the SBBL 12 BORE Catridge Gun No. 35002 of Company W.J. Jeffery and Co. Ltd., which was seized in connection with 2(b)CC Case No. 39 of 2006 on the file of learned J.M.F.C, Daspalla, or in alternative pay compensation to him, as the same has been lost in the Court Malkhana. 2. As per the prosecution allegation, on 20.05.2006 at 10.30 AM., while the petitioner was proceeding in a Maruti Van, the Forester, namely, Laxman Baral, along with other forest and police staff, stopped the said vehicle. On search, they found a gun, i.e., SBBL 12 BORE Catridge Gun No. 35002 of Company W.J. Jeffery and Co. Ltd. inside the Maruti Van along with some dead birds. The Forester seized the said gun, arrested the petitioner and forwarded him to the Court. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the licence holder of the seized gun and authorized to keep the same for the purpose of safety of his life and protection of his crops, and was permitted a limited area to move with the said gun. The petitioner, along with his brother, was taken by Daspalla Police and then the OIC, Daspalla P.S. called the forest personnel, forwarded the petitioner and his brother, and produced the seized gun in the Court of J.M.F.C., Daspalla, which was kept in the safe custody of Malkhana of the said Court on 20.05.2006. The gun of the petitioner is partly made of iron and partly made of wood, for which frequent service is required for its maintenance or else the gun will be damaged by rust and white ant. Since the seized gun is available in the Court's Malkhana of J.M.F.C., Daspalla, the said Court has jurisdiction to pass an order for its release in the zima of its owner (petitioner) as per the provision of law. Since the seized gun is available in the Court's Malkhana of J.M.F.C., Daspalla, the said Court has jurisdiction to pass an order for its release in the zima of its owner (petitioner) as per the provision of law. Therefore, relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 39 OCR 629, an application was filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner on 01.06.2006 before the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla, in 2(b)CC Case No. 39 of 2006 for release of the seized gun, and the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla passed order on 15.05.2018, the effective part of which runs as follows:— “Hence, taking into account all the above facts into consideration, and the case law that I relied upon, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is the bonafide owner of the said seized gun as per the available documents produced before this Court and has no involvement in the said case leading to seizure of the same. Let the said seized gun bearing SBBL 12 Bore Catridge Ltd., be released in favour of the petitioner by furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand Rupees) only or cash of the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall not use the said gun in any criminal activities, and shall not change its colour, (2) He will produce the said gun before the Court during trial as and when required. (3) He shall not change the ownership and alienate the same during the pendency of the case.” 4. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner furnished indemnity bond of Rs. 30,000/- along with surety, affidavit, ROR, rent receipt, Aadhar Card and other relevant documents. On perusal of the same, the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla passed an order on 02.07.2018 directing the Malkhana I/C to release the seized gun forthwith. Even, on the very same day, vide a later order, the Nazir, Malkhana I/C was directed to release the said gun in favour of the petitioner on execution of proper zimanama. On 03.07.2018, on the report noted in the order sheet by the Nazir, Malkhana I/C of that Court, the J.M.F.C., Daspalla passed order that it has to be satisfied about the existence of the said gun of the petitioner in the Court Malkhana only after making inventory, and accordingly directed to put up the matter on 20.07.2018. On 03.07.2018, on the report noted in the order sheet by the Nazir, Malkhana I/C of that Court, the J.M.F.C., Daspalla passed order that it has to be satisfied about the existence of the said gun of the petitioner in the Court Malkhana only after making inventory, and accordingly directed to put up the matter on 20.07.2018. Thereafter, what has happened in that case, nothing has been placed on record. As the gun in question has not been released in favour of the petitioner, this application has been filed on 11.09.2019 seeking following reliefs: “(i) Admit the writ application; (ii) Call for the records; (iii) Issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why departmental proceeding shall not be initiated against them; (iv) If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute by initiating departmental proceeding against the authority concern; (v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the opposite parties to pay compensation to the petitioner for lost of his gun SBBL 12 BORE Cartridge Gun No. 35002 of Company W.J. Jeffery and Co. Ltd., in the Court Malkhana.” 5. This Court, vide order dated 20.09.2019, noted that despite passing of the order dated 15.05.2018 in 2(b) CC No. 39 of 2006 by the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla directing release of seized gun styled as SBBL, Bore Gun No. 35002 manufactured by W.J. Jeffery & Col. Ltd. in favour of the petitioner, the same has not yet been released, as the same is not available in the Malkhana of the said Court, and consequentially called for a report from the learned District Judge, Nayagarh. As no report was received, vide order dated 14.11.2019, a reminder was sent. Pursuant to order dated 20.09.2019, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Nayagarh has submitted a report. On perusal of such report, it is observed that the seized gun styled as SBBL 35002, 12 Bore Catridge manufactured by W.J. Jeffery and Company Ltd. has been found missing from Daspalla Court Malkhana during the incumbency of Sri. Sukanta Kumar Satapathy, the then Malkhana Clerk. It has also been indicated that after receipt of explanation from Sukanta Kumar Satapathy, the office will initiate both administrative and legal action against him. 6. Sukanta Kumar Satapathy, the then Malkhana Clerk. It has also been indicated that after receipt of explanation from Sukanta Kumar Satapathy, the office will initiate both administrative and legal action against him. 6. In the above backdrop of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction be issued to the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla to conclude the trial in 2(b)CC Case No. 39 of 2006 within a specific time. Accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 09.12.2019, directed learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla to submit a report as to within what time he can conclude the trial of the said case. In response to the said order, learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla reported that sanction of PR in 2(b)CC Case No. 39/2009 was received on 23.12.2019 and its trial can be concluded within a period of four months. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed hard for grant of compensation for loss of the seized gun. Thereby, this Court passed an order on 10.01.2020 calling upon the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy the Court by citing judgments that in the event of loss of any product kept in the Court Malkhana, its owner would be entitled to get compensation. In compliance thereof, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358 : AIR 1977 SC 1749 and Inter Continental, Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Amin Chand Khanna, (1980) 3 SCC 103 : AIR 1980 SC 951 . 7. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate argued with vehemence and contended that since the trial in 2(b)CC Case No. 39/2009 has not been concluded and on the basis of the report received if the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla would take four months time to conclude the trial, in that case, the petitioner should wait till conclusion of trial and then ask for release of the seized gun, which was kept in Court Malkhana, or else if the petitioner wants to get compensation for the lost gun, he has to approach the very same Court for consideration of his grievance, instead of filing this CRLMP application. 8. This Court heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State, and perused the record. 8. This Court heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State, and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 9. On the basis of factual matrix, as discussed above, the SBBL, Bore Gun No. 35002 manufactured by W.J. Jeffery & Col. Ltd. was seized by the forest and police authorities from the Maruti Van of the petitioner for alleged commission of forest offence and the same was kept in Malkhana of the J.M.F.C., Daspalla in connection with 2(b) CC Case No. 39/2009. As it was found that there was no involvement of the said gun in the offence alleged, the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla, vide order dated 15.05.2018, directed for release of the gun by furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 30,000/- or cash of the like amount subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner, having complied with the same, as a necessary corollary, the gun should have been released in his favour, pending trial of the case. But subsequently, when the gun was found lost from the Court Malkhana, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation for the lost gun from Malkhana of the J.M.F.C., Daspalla. 10. On examination of relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court finds that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. Taking into the aforementioned object and scheme of various provisions of the Code and applying to the present context, since the gun in question was seized by the police and kept in Malkhana of the J.M.F.C., Daspalla, such order passed by the Court on 15.05.2018 for release of the same in favour of its owner (petitioner) by furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- or cash of the like amount subject to the conditions stipulated therein. On receipt of the report from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, this Court finds that the said gun has been lost and thereby proceeding has been initiated against the person concerned. As all steps have taken to find out the gun in question, but the same is still missing, the petitioner claims that he should be duly compensated for the loss of gun from the custody of the Malkhana of the Court. 11. In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (supra), the apex Court passed order that the appellant in the said case was entitled to receive cash equivalent to the property lost which was held to be Rs. 10,000/- and such amount should be paid to the complainant by the State. 12. 11. In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (supra), the apex Court passed order that the appellant in the said case was entitled to receive cash equivalent to the property lost which was held to be Rs. 10,000/- and such amount should be paid to the complainant by the State. 12. Similarly, in Inter Continental, Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the apex Court held that it was the duty of the Court to probe into the matter, make a full enquiry, and trace the whereabouts of the buses. If the buses could not be so traced or if the buses could not be delivered to the owner for any reason the duty of the Court to direct the culpable party to pay the value of the vehicles to the appellant. 13. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions of the G.R.C.O. (Criminal) Vol., Chapter-XVIII, which deal with “Custody and Disposal of Property” from Rule 172 to 187, wherein the manner has been prescribed to take custody and disposal of property which has been kept in Malkhana of the Court. Since the gun in question, which was kept in the Malkhana of the J.M.F.C., Daspalla, is found missing and despite the direction given by the Court for release of such gun in favour of the owner (petitioner), if the same is not released, in that case for causing loss of the gun, the petitioner is to be paid compensation. 14. In Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector, Thana, AIR 1965 1069, it has been held that the expression ‘compensation’ means ‘just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of.’ 15. In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangal Das, (1969) 1 SCC 509 : AIR 1969 SC 634 , the apex Court held that ‘compensation’ means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given to or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay. 16. In Kiranbal Bandapat v. Secy. Grid corporation of Orissa Ltd., AIR 1998 Ori 159 , this Court held as follows : ‘Compensation’ means anything given lo make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be determined as given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damified may receive equal value for his loss or be made whole in respect of his injury; something given or obtained as equivalent; rendering of equivalent in value or amount an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for whole injury suffered, remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage or every description. The expression ‘compensation’ is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to ‘damage’ although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach.” 17. The well said dictum of law is that no one shall be prejudiced for the acts of the Court ‘actus curiae Neminem Gravabit’ (the act of the Court harms no one). 18. In view of propositions of law, as discussed above, the petitioner has not placed on record the cost of the gun which has been found missing. Therefore, this Court is unable to make any assessment thereof to give compensation to the petitioner for the missing gun more particularly when trial, as well as proceeding against the alleged erring persons is still pending consideration. In such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner may, if so advised, by filing a properly constituted application, approach the court below, which shall take into consideration the same and pass appropriate order in awarding compensation, which may be in cash equivalent to the price of the lost/missing gun, after following due procedure of law. 19. With the above observation and direction, the CRLMP stands disposed of. No order as to costs.