The court affirmed that a search and seizure under the Essential Commodities Act by authorized officers is valid, regardless of the petitioner's claims of unauthorized action and liability as a private individual.

JUDGMENT :

Shailendra Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.12.2014 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea (S.D.J.M., Purnea) whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short ‘E.C. Act’) has been taken against the petitioner in connection with G.R. Case No. 1259 of 2014 arising out of K. Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 210 of 2014.

3. As per the prosecution’s allegation, petitioner’s restaurant was raided by a team headed by an Assistant District Supply Officer -cum- Senior Deputy Collector and altogether eleven Domestic Subsidized Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders were found in a room adjacent to the kitchen of the restaurant of the petitioner and out of seized cylinders, eight were full and three were empty and they belonged to H.P. and Indane Gas Agencies.

4. The main grounds taken by the petitioner’s counsel to assail the order impugned are that firstly, neither the informant, Block Supply Officer nor any other official of raiding team was authorized to enter and search the restaurant of the petitioner at the relevant time which is clearly a violation of the Clause 13 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 (in short ‘LPG Order, 2000’) and merely on this ground, the entire prosecution as well as investigation made in K. Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 210 of 2014 is bad in law. In support of this ground learned counsel has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Jharkhand High Court passed in the cases of Sheela Sharma vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. No. 1046 of 2013 and Kanchan alias Kanchan Kumar Singh vs. the State of Jharkhand in Cr. M.P. No. 3153 of 2013.

Secondly, the petitioner is a private person, so, in view of the observation made by this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar vs. The State of Bihar passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21936 of 2011, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act as only an agent or the Public Distribution System (PDS) Dealer can be prosecuted for the said offence.

Thirdly, the seized cylinders were kept in a room adjacent to the kitchen of restaurant and none of them was being used by the petitioner for business purpose rather they were kept by their respective owners for their convenience inside the premises of the restaurant of the petitioner and the said persons were connected with the restaurant either as being an employee or relative of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that no violation of the clause- 13 of LPG Order, 2000 was made either by the informant or any other member of the raiding party as the informant was not below the rank of Inspector at the time of raid and as per the State Government’s notification, G.S.R.I. dated 18^th January, 2008, issued in exercise of the power conferred under clause- 7 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (in short ‘Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Regulation Order, 2005’) all Assistant District Supply Officers were empowered during the relevant period of time to search any premises in respect of the Petroleum product and the principle laid down by this Court in the order passed in the case of Arvind Ku