The necessity of a government notification for the enforcement of regulations under the Essential Commodities Act and the requirement for searches and seizures to be conducted by authorized officers are critical for the validity of criminal charges related to essential commodities.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.137 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sec. 285 of the IPC, Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) and Clause 3 of the Motor Spirit and high Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 ('the Motor Spirit Order' for short), wrongly mentioned as Petroleum Rules, 2002 in the FIR pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Mulbagal, Kolar District.

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated, are as follows:

The petitioner is the holder of a licence for transportation of diesel and is an appointed person to run a petrol bunk in the name and style of SWS and Sons Petrol Bunk. On 15/9/2022, the Police Sub-Inspector along with his staff, who were on patrolling duty on Mulbagal-Chittor National Highway 75, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of diesel in a lorry, which belongs to the petrol bunk of the petitioner, reached the bunk, noticed the lorry tanker coming out of the petrol bunk and intercepted the lorry, at which point in time, the Driver is said to have fled the spot leaving the lorry at the hands of the search party. It is alleged that on inspection of the said lorry, it was noticed that diesel was loaded in the tanker and they did not trace any licence or permit for transportation of diesel. Pursuant thereto, they seized the lorry and submitted the same to the Station House Officer of Mulbagal Police Station with a direction to initiate action against the driver of the lorry and the owner of the petrol bunk i.e., the petitioner. Based upon the aforesaid incident and report being made by the search party, the Station House Officer registers a crime in Crime No.137 of 2022, for the afore-mentioned offences. The petitioner being aggrieved by the registration of the crime, is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to contend a threshold bar of registration of a crime by the respondent/Police qua the offences so alleged. It is his submission that unless a notification is issued by the State Government under Sec. 3 of the Act with regard to the quantity of diesel, there cannot be any seizure by the officers of the State i.e., the Police. It is his further submission that in terms of the Motor Spirit Order, the designated authority for search and seizure is only an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and, therefore, would submit that incompetent officer has searched and seized the vehicle contrary to law. On all these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek that the petition be allowed and registration of crime be quashed by obliteration.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions and verification of records would admit that there is no notification issued by the State Government in terms of Sec. 3 of the Act, either depicting the authority or the quantum of diesel that can be carried in a tanker but would contend that the matter is still at the stage of registration of crime and as such, further investigation should be permitted to be continued against the petitioner. Insofar as competent authority is concerned, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the act of the Police Sub-Inspector conducting search and seizure. She seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The incident is the one narrated hereinabove, which is seizure of a diesel ta