( 1 ) D. Rama Murthy is a commission Agent at Khammam. He transported 573 bags containing ravva in a wagon box No. 67304 of Raijways from khammam station. The bags were to be delivered to two firms - K. R. Pulnaekar and Brothers and Abnnapurna Flour Mill at Gadagin the State of Mysore. The Vigilance inspector of Civil Supplies, as respects the bags received an anonymous telephone complaint, to contain Rulgar wheat not ravva. On receipt of complaint, crime No. 39/1971 was recorded on March 15, 1971. The goods at Khammam Railway station were seized by Civil Supplies department. The bags were shifted to warehouse of the District Co-operative marketing Society Limited. To avoid deterioration of the goods, later, the stock was sold in a public auction. Out of the sale proceeds, godown rent of Rs. 1,581-94 ps. was paid. The Judicial First Class magistrate, Khammam on December 4, 1972 ordered the balance of sale proceeds be paid to Commission Agent.

( 2 ) IN the course of the investigation, the Vigilance Inspector seized bill book, exs. B-3 to B-6 of the Commission Agent, and Distribution Supply Register of Bulgar wheat maintained under the A. P. Gift goods (Prevention of Unlawful Possession) Act x. of 1965. He examined witnesses at brabmanapalli village. When he did not find any incriminating evidence to prosecute the Commission Agent under Act X of 1965, he considered the feasibility to prosecute under the provisions of the A. P. Food- grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. Since no evidence was procured, no charge-sheet was laid either under the Act X of 1965 or under the Order 1964. The Commission agent was finally discharged in the Criminal court.

( 3 ) THE instant civil suit was laid by the Commission Agent, after he was discharged, for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- deducting Rs. 30,964-46 ps. paid by the criminal Court. The suit was laid against the State Government, in that the Vigilance inspector was not impleaded. The suit was principally resisted by the State of A. P. to hold, the seizure of bags, no doubt, was a tortuous act, but a plea of immunity was raised for tort under the State sovereignty.

( 4 ) THE issue in the suit, inter alia, were: whether the seizure was illegal; whether the seized 573 bags were of bulgar wheat; whether the State Government was responsible for the deterioration of goods -in the godown. These issues were answered against the State. A decree followed. Hence, the appeal by the State Government. In the decree, however, the amounts paid by the Commission Agent as sales-tax and railway freight were not allowed, therefore, the Commission Agent lodged cross-objections in the appeal covering the said two times.-

( 5 ) THE State Government did not adduce any evidence at the trial to hold the bags seized contained not ravva but bulgar wheat1. P. Satyanarayana Rao, the Inspector of Vigilance Cell, deposed: He could not collect evidence to implicate the Commission agent. The Bail books, EXB-3 to B-6 showed the stock were ravva . The Distribution supply Register maintained under act X of 1965 by the Field Worker, Appa rao. did not show culpability of the commission Agent. It is thus seen from the evidence, the seizure of bags was wholly unjustified either under the Act x of 1965 or under the Order, 1964 In the- instant appeal, no question as to probable cause or reasonableness of seizure is raised to justify the act of seizure made on March 15, 1971 by the vigilance Inspector, therefore, that aspect is not considered.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader, however, cited the following four cases: k. Krishna murthy v. State of Andhra pradesh, (1960)2 An. W. R. 502= AIR1961 a. P. 283: Chodey Janakiramaiah and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1964)1 Aruw. R. 253; Hindupur Co-op. Stores v. State of Andhra, (1964)1 An. W. R,333; and Chetty and Co. v. Collector of ,anantapur, (1965)1 an. W. R. 183= AIR1965 A. P. 457 and argued, the fact of seizure, on the facts was a tortuous act and for such an ac