The court upheld the validity of the search and seizure based on the petitioner holding a huge quantity of crackers beyond the permitted limit in the licenses granted to him.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for quashing the FIR of Khazekalan P.S. Case no. 253 of 2016, for quashing the search and seizure dated 7-8.10.2016, for directing the respondents to release the seized goods and residential premises and for other reliefs.

3. The facts in brief are that an FIR being Khazekalan P.S. Case no. 253 of 2016 was registered under sections 285, 286 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 5A and 9B of the Explosives Act, 1984 and section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that by letter no. 5493 dated 31.5.2016 the District Magistrate, Patna directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City to inspect the shop selling crackers. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Patna City only seven shopkeepers responded to the notice. After obtaining information inspections were conducted on different shops being run by six different persons including the petitioner herein. On inspection of shop of the petitioner it transpired that three licences had been issued to him in the year 1967, 1987 and 1991 by the licensing authority but no objection certificate was not obtained from the District. In the search/inquiry conducted it transpired that while the petitioner had licence for 1200 kgs of chinese crackers and/or sparkles and 300 kgs of fireworks, the quantity of crackers etc stored in the shop was much beyond the permissible limit. Further there was residential premises over the shop in which the crackers had been stored. The accused persons had abandoned their shops and had gone away and as such the shops were sealed and the FIR registered.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from reading of the entire contents of the FIR no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and it is for this reason that no charge sheet has been filed even after five years of registration of the case. It is submitted that at best it is a case of violation of the terms of the licence. Learned senior counsel submits that the search and seizure also being illegal, both the FIR as also search and seizure dated 7/8.10.2016, both be quashed. Further prayer is made for release of goods as also for unsealing of the residential premises.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that on 7/8.10.2016 the residential house of the petitioner was searched in presence of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City, the A.S.P, Patna City, the Executive Magistrate, Patna City as also the S.H.O and I.O of the case of Khazekalan Police Station. On search including the boxes used for packing, crackers to the tune of more than 10,000 kgs (approx) were found stored in the residential house of the petitioner. Accordingly, a seizure list was prepared. Written intimation was given by the Investigating Officer to the Explosive Controller, Patna.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf and the respondent no. 11 that the petitioner is a valid licence holder having three licences which were issued in the year, 1990, 1987 and 1987 and were renewed by the authority from time to time according to the Explosive Substance Rules, 2008.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Although the petitioner is said to be the holder of a licence, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was holding/storing in his shop which is just below the residential premises, huge quantity of crackers which was much beyond the quantity permitted in the three licences granted to him. Thus, the Court finds no merit in the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR and the search and seizure. The same is rejected.

9. It may be stated here that learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in supp