S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are Accused 1 to 3, invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 956 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, jadcherla.

( 2 ) A brief resume of back ground of the facts is necessary. The Inspector of Police, vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, mahaboobnagar inspected the petrol bunk of the first accused, M/s. Yadaiah and sons, a Bharat Petroleum Corporation dealer and recorded density in the presence of the mediators in the morning hours. The said inspector also has drawn samples in three bottles from each tank of MS and HSD outlet nozzles. He sent two sample bottles for analysis. Basing on the report of the Analyst, the said Inspector registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No. 123/vc. MBNR/99 since there was variation in the density beyond the permissible limits and malpractices violating the provisions of the motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 and sought to punish the accused under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause 2 (e) and clause 5 of MS and HSD (RSDPM) Order, 1998 for short ( the MS and HSD Order ).

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners assails the proceedings on two grounds. The first ground is that the Inspector of Police, vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department is not authorized to make search and seizure and the same has to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police in view of Clause iv of the MS and HSD Order. The second contention is that the petitioner has not been supplied with Analyst report immediately and no sample bottle has been supplied to get it tested from an independent Analyst. Reliance is placed on the provisions of the food Adulteration Act and Fertilizer (Control) Order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners wanted to draw my attention on the applicability of the provisions by analogy.

( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Inspector of Police, vigilance Cell is a Gazetted Officer of the state and has been authorized to make search and seizure. It is also contended that it is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers. It is further contended that there are no rules where under a copy of the Analyst report has to be furnished to a dealer so as to send another sample bottle to an independent analyst.

( 5 ) ADVERTING to the contentions, it is necessary to decide whether the Inspector of police has got jurisdiction to make search and seizure in respect of petrol bunk of MS and HSD. Before adverting to the same, it is necessary to have a glance at Clause 4 of the ms and HSD (RSDPM) Order of 1998 which reads as under:"4. Power of search and seizure: (A) Any Gazetted Officer of the Central or State Government or any police officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police (DSP) duly authorized by general or special order by the Central Government or State government as the case may be or any officer of the concerned oil company not below the rank of Sales Officer may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this order, or for the purpose of satisfying himself that this order or any order made thereunder has been complied with: (i) enter and search any place or premises being made use of or suspected to be made use by a dealer, transporter, consumer, or any other person who is an employee or agent of such dealer/ transporter/consumer or any other person with respect to which there is reason to believe that the provisions of this order have been/are being or are about to be contravened, (ii) Stop and search any person or vehicle or receptacle used or intended to be used for the movement of the product. (iii) Inspect any book of accounts or order documents or any stock of the product used or suspected to be used in the business of the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document