In Re: Sivaraman

Saryamuthy, J.—This is a Criminal revision against the judgment of the leaned Sessions Judge of Salem dismissing C.A. No. 652 of 1976 filed against the order of the District Revenue Officer and Collector-in-charge, Salem confiscating 12 bags of rice belonging to the revision petitioner.

On 6th December, at about 8 A.M. at Shevapet Shandy the Inspector of Police, Food Cell, C.I.D. Salem stopped a double bullock cart and checked the bags which were ought to be transported by the cart. He found. 12 bags rice in the cart. The cartman produced a bill which had been endorsed in favour of S.S. Chinna Gounder Mundy, Salem by N. Sivaraman, Dhaaalakshmi Rice Mill, MacDonald Choultry, the revision petitioner. There was no seal of the check post on the bill. Hence the 12 bags of rice were seized and the premises of the petitioner''s mill were searched by the Inspector. The revision petitioner had T.N.C.S.C.S. stock of paddy of 262. 21 quintals.

The revision petitioner is hulling agent of the Civil Supplies Corporation for the purpose of hulling paddy acquired by the Government from time to time. As per rule 14 of his license he should get the previous permission of the Corporation for hulling his private stock in the mill. According to the Inspector the 12 bags of rice were hulled by the petitioner without any such permission and were transported for the purpose of sale to another wholesale dealer in contravention of the license granted to him.

The District Revenue Officer and Collector-in-charge of Salem ordered the confiscation of the 12 bags of rice seized, because he found that the petitioner had violated the terms of license and committed an offence under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act read with CI. 4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. This order of the District Revenue Officer has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that no offence was committed, because there was no sale to any person within any area specified in the license issued to the revision petitioner and that in fact no area has been specified in the license issued to the petitioner for the purpose of his business as a wholesale dealer. The answer to this contention is that the area within which the licensee was entitled to carry on the business is the area over which the authority granting license has jurisdiction, if that area is not specifically limited in and by the license issued.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the rules framed thereunder for the purpose of search have not been complied with and that, therefore, the search of the cart is illegal and without jurisdiction and that consequently the subsequent proceedings ending with the confiscation of rice also are illegal. For this contention he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the provisions of S. 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1966 (Mysore Act 21 of 1966) have been considered. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in that case that:

the inspector who searched the car of the appellant had not made any record of any ground 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.

This, therefore, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiates the conviction. We fell that both Ss. 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment The point was taken before the High Court which appears to have brushed aside this legal lacuna without making any real attempt to analyse the effect of the provisions of Ss. 53 and 54. The High Court observed that these two sections were wholly Irrelevant. With due respect, we are unable to approve of such a cryptic approach to a legal question which is of far-reaching consequences. It was however suggested that the word ''place'' would not include the car. but the definition of the word ''place'' under the Act clearly Includes vehicle which would Include a car. Thus the ground on which the argument of the petitioner has been rejected by the High Court cannot be sustained by us. we are satisfied that there has been a direct non-compliance of the provisions of S. 54 which renders the search completely without jurisdiction.

In P. Ramachandra v. Government of India AIR 1979 A.P. 28 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed that:

CI- 11.(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order does not admit of any doubt that even at the time of entering or searching the premises, there must be reasonable belief that any contravention has been or is likely to be committed. That ''Mason to believe'' is a condition precedent to vest any jurisdiction in the officers either to enter the premises or to make any search. In the absence of such reasonable belief, the entry and the consequent search has been vitiated. The mere fact that subsequently they discovered some discrepancy in the stock on hand and the position of stock as entered on the notice board, cannot make good the reasonable belief which an officer is bound to have initially before he makes an entry. The subsequent discovery of any material cannot be equated to the initial reasonable belief.

Subsequently, it has been held that:-

a fishing or roving enquiry is not permissible to cull out material for formulating a reason to believe subsequently. In other words, the reasonable belief must exist before the officer makes a seizure of the grounds under the above two costs. But CI 11(h) of the A. P. Foodgrains Licensing Order also enjoins upon the requirement of reasonable belief before even an entry is made into the premises. Thus, under this Order, unless such a reasonable belief exists as to the likelihood, of any contravention being committed or has been committed, there is no power in the officers to make such entry.

The ratio of these two cases is applicable to the facts of the instant case because 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 were sought to be contravened "at the time he stopped the cart and searched the same. He had merely stated that he stopped the cart which had passed through the check post. Even 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. There is nothing on record to prove that he had ''reason to believe'' that any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 had been contravened. Therefore, the seizure was illegal and consequently the order of confiscation is set aside. The revision is allowed.