In Re: A. Soorianarayanan and Another

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sessions Judge), Madurai, confirming the order of

the Additional Collector, Madurai, confiscating 40 quintals of paddy.

On 9th October, 1978, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Madurai, inspected Sri Arumugha Vilas Rice Mill, Madurai, of which the

first revision petitioner is the proprietor. It was found during inspection that there was unaccounted raw paddy of about 180 bags weighing 57 kgs.

each. They were seized and a special report was submitted to the Collector recommending confiscation. The Additional Collector issued a show-

cause notice under S. 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act to the first revision petitioner and also to the second revision petitioner, who is the

Accountant, who are alleged to have violated the provisions of Cls.14(2) and 16 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade)

Order, 1974, punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The revision petitioners contended that 180 bags of raw paddy were

purchased at Chidambaram and were brought on the morning on 9th October, 1978 and entries were not made in the books as it was a Sunday.

This defence did not find favour with the Additional Collector, who found that there has been a violation of Cls.14 (2) and 16 (1) of the Tamil

Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 and passed an order confiscating forty quintals of paddy out of the seized stock. In

appeal, the order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petitioners are aggrieved and have filed this revision.

The inspection of the premises is not disputed, nor the seizure of the paddy bags. It is pointed out by the Appellate Authority that verification of

entries in the register shows that transactions pertaining to all the days in the month inclusive of Sundays have been duly recorded. It is also seen

that on 8th October, 1978 on which day 180 bags of paddy were said to have been received from Chidambaram, there have been other

transactions of sale or paddy, which have been duly entered in the books, but not this transaction. Therefore, the explanation that they failed to

make entries as it was a Sunday, is not acceptable. Further, the inspection was only on 9th October, 1978. There was ample time to make the

entry. Rightly the explanation of the revision petitioners was not accepted by both the authorities and sitting in revision, I do not see any reason to

interfere with the finding of the authorities below that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Order mentioned earlier.

But, it is contended that the Inspector of Police has not stated in his report that ""he had reason to believe that an offence had been or was being

committed or was likely to be committed"" and therefore, the seizure was illegal and the confiscation has to be set aside. In support, the counsel for

appellant relied on M. Sivaraman, In re, 1980 L.W. (Crl.) 271 a ruling of this Court. That was a case where a hulling agent of the Civil Supplies

Corporation hulled 12 bags of rice without getting the previous permission of the Corporation for hulling his private stock in the mill in accordance

with Condition 14 of his licence. He transported 12 bags of rice to another wholesale dealer for the purpose of sale, in contravention of the license

granted to him. The Inspector of Police stopped the double bullock-cart and checked the hags which were sought to be transported by the cart.

He found 12 bags of rice in the cart and the cart-man produced a bill, but there was no seal of the check post on the bill and therefore, the 12 bags

of rice were seized, and the premises of the petitioner''s mill was also searched by the Inspector. Suryamurthi, J., observed that the Inspector has

not stated in his report that he had ""reason to believe"" that the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or the rules framed thereunder had

been contravened or sought to be contravened at the time he stopped the cart and searched the same, that he had merely stated that he stopped

the cart which had passed through the check post and thereafter he entertained merely a suspicion that an offence has been committed or might be

committed and has not stated in his report that he had ""reason to believe"" that an offence has been committed or was likely to be committed and

therefore, the seizure was illegal. In the end he set aside the confiscation. The ruling referred to does not show as to why the Inspector should say

in his report that he has ""reason to believe"", nor does the learned counsel give any reason as to why such words should be found in the report of

the searching officer. But, it would have been better had there been such a report in view of Cl.25 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation

of Trade) Order, 1974. Cl.25 (1) (e) states that if any competent officer has reason to believe that any contravention of the order has been

committed or is being committed or is about to be committed such officer may seize the stock of paddy or rice along with the packages, coverings

or receptacles in which such paddy or rice is found or the animals, vehicles, vessels, boats or other conveyances used in carrying such paddy or

rice and thereafter send to the Collector of the district concerned a report in writing as required under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955.

S 3(2)(j)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act runs thus:

Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-S.(1), an order made thereunder may provide�

xxx xxx xxx

(j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including, in particular the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or

other conveyances and animals, and the seizure '' by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination,�

(i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being or is about to be,

committed and any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found;

(Emphasis supplied)

It should be noted that the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, was made in exercise of the powers conferred under

S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court had to deal with Ss. 53 and 54 of the

Mysore Excise Act. In that case, the accused was convicted under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months rigorous

imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100 for being in possession of 48 bottles of liquor which were recovered from the car which was driven by the

accused. It was contended for the accused in that case that the Inspector of Excise who searched the car along with the punches had no

jurisdiction to do so, because he did so without complying with the provisions of S. 54 of the Mysore Excise Act. Their Lordships have extracted

Ss. 53 and 54. Both S. 53 and S. 54 speak of the ""reasonable belief"" that an offence under the Act is being committed before a search is made. In

that case it was held that the Inspector who searched the car of the accused had not recorded the grounds on the basis of which he had a

reasonable belief that an offence under the Act was being committed before proceeding to search the car and thus the provisions of S. 54 were not

at all complied with. They finally held that noncompliance of the provisions of S. 54 renders the search completely without jurisdiction.

P. Ramachandra Chetty Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Food, Govt. of India, New Delhi and Others, was a case where the Vigilance Cell

Inspectors and other Revenue Officials entered the residence-cum-business premises of the petitioner in that case who was a licensed foodgrains

dealer in Chittoor, had searched the premises and seized 2,000 bags of foodgrains. According to the officials, the dealer had contravened Cl.7-A

of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. The contention in that case was that it is only a reasonable belief that any

contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order or of any conditions of the licence issued thereunder

has been or is being or is about to be committed, that would give jurisdiction or empower the licensing authority or any officers specified in Cl.(11)

of the Licensing Order, to enter and search the premises and only on such belief he could seize the goods. The learned Judges of the Division

Bench pointed out that Cl.(11) (h) of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order enjoins upon the requirement of reasonable belief

before even an entry is made into the premises and that under the Order unless such a reasonable belief exists as to the likelihood of any

contravention being committed or has been committed, there is no power to the officers to make such an entry. They also pointed out that S. 11(b)

lays down that there must be reasonable belief and that it is that reasonable belief that vests jurisdiction in the officer to enter the premises. But, the

learned Judges on that ground alone quashed the proceedings in respect of the entry, search and seizure.

In Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Controller of Aluminium and Others, a firm withheld from sale 1,525 tons of aluminium products

in contravention of the Aluminium Control Order, 1970 during the period ending 1st July, 1975 and the firm before 16th July, 1975 despatched

1,525 tons and on 16th July, 1975 the authorities seized the entire stock of 2.032 tons of aluminium product from the premises of the firm. The

learned Judges of the Delhi High Court took the view that�

The reason to believe that any contravention of the Control Order had taken place (to which aspect alone the discussion in this judgment has to be

and is confined in the circumstances explained above) is a pre-condition to the seizure of goods. It is well established that any exercise of statutory

power interfering with the property rights of citizens is possible only after strictly complying with the preconditions for the exercise of such a power.

The reason to believe in this case, therefore, must relate lo the period of time when the impugned seizure was made, namely, on 16th July, 1975; in

other words, even any subsequent acquisition of belief in this regard would be of no avail.

This ruling would show that a reasonable belief that a contravention has been committed was a pre-condition for the seizure. But, the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that there is no record in this case to show that any such reasonable belief existed enabling the officer

to make the search and seizure. But in Bai Radha Vs. The State of Gujarat, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated as follows:

In this case however, it was observed that the recording of reasons under S. 165 did not confer on the officer jurisdiction to make search though it

is a necessary condition for doing so. Jurisdiction or power to make a search was conferred by the statute and not derived from the recording of

reasons. These observations are sufficient to dispose of the first point which has been pressed about the omission to record the reasons before the

search or even thereafter in a proper way.

In State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Kandaswamy Pillai 1977 L.W. (Crl.) 77, a Division Bench of this Court had to deal with the legality of the

seizure without observing the provisions of Cl.14 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing. Regulation and Disposal of Stocks)

Control Order, 1968, and of Ss. 102 and 103 of the Crl.P.C. Cl.14 of the Order made the provisions of Ss. 102 and 103 of the Crl. P.C. relating

to search applicable as far as possible to search and seizure under the Order. The Division Bench observed that if the search and seizure is not in

accordance with law, it may be open to the person accused to complain that the seizure was never made, or that the evidence as to seizure cannot

be accepted, but once it is made out that the weapon or the stolen property was seized from the accused, the mere fact that the search and seizure

were not in accordance with law would not vitiate the seizure.

In Radhakishan Vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court stated thus:

So far as the alleged illegality of a search is concerned it is sufficient to say that even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is

not vitiated. It may be that where the provisions of Ss. 103 and 165, Crl. P.C. are contravened the search could be resisted by the person whose

premises are sought to be searched. It may also be that because of the illegality of the search the Court may be inclined to examine carefully the

evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond those two consequences no further consequence ensues.

The rulings in Bai Radha Vs. The State of Gujarat, and Radhakishan Vs. State of U.P., , would indicate that the validity of a search would not be

affected merely because there has been an omission to record the reasons. In this case, according to the counsel for the petitioner, there has been a

contravention of Cl.25 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. It should be noted that Cl.25 does not contemplate

that the competent officer should record in his report that he had reason to believe that a contravention of the Order has been committed or is

being committed or is about to be committed. It is enough if the competent officer had reason to believe so. It may be that the competent officer on

the basis of the information which he might have received, effects the seizure and it may be that such information could not be disclosed to the

affected party. In my view, unless some prejudice is caused to the accused, failure to state in his report that the competent officer had reason to

believe that a contravention of the order has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed, would not vitiate either the seizure

of the proceedings. No doubt, the report of the police officer does not mention that he had reason to believe that a contravention of the order has

been committed, or is being committed or is about to be committed. But, that by itself will not affect the validity of the seizure. I am therefore, of

the view that the order of confiscation is correct. The revision fails and is dismissed.