Back
High Court of Calcutta
J.N. Hore, J.
Pradip Kumar Agarwalla – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
C.R. 434 of 1991
Decided On : May 29, 1991
CRIMINAL REVISION - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 - West Bengal Declarations of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 - Violation of paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order and paragraph 18(1) of the Rice and Paddy Order - Legality of search and seizure - Maintainability of revision petition - Interpretation of 'reason to believe' and 'reason to suspect' - Discrepancy in stock - Maintainability of second revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, partners of a rice mill, were accused of violating paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, and paragraph 18(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967. The allegations included failure to maintain accurate accounts, discrepancy between stock records and actual stock, and non-display of stock boards. The petitioners challenged the legality of the search and seizure, arguing that the provision authorizing seizure based on 'reason to suspect' was ultra vires and beyond the State Government's competence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the F.I.R. did not disclose prima facie materials to support the allegation of violating paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices Order, as the mill was closed on the day of the raid and there was no transaction of business. Regarding the alleged violation of paragraph 18(1) of the Rice and Paddy Order, the court examined the seized registers and found no real discrepancy between the stock shown in the registers and the actual stock found on weighment. The court also noted that the discrepancy was within the allowable limits of handling loss.
Issues: 1. Whether the search and seizure were legal and within the State Government's competence. 2. Whether there was a prima facie case of violation of paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices Order. 3. Whether there was a real discrepancy in the stock of rice and paddy, as alleged under paragraph 18(1) of the Rice and Paddy Order. 4. Whether the second revision petition was maintainable, considering the dismissal of an earlier revision petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provision authorizing seizure based on 'reason to suspect' was ultra vires and beyond the State Government's competence, as it was inconsistent with the Central Government's provision authorizing seizure based on 'reason to believe.' 2. The court found that the F.I.R. did not provide prima facie materials to support the allegation of violating paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices Order, as the mill was closed on the day of the raid and there was no transaction of business. 3. The court examined the seized registers and found no real discrepancy between the stock shown in the registers and the actual stock found on weighment. The court also noted that the discrepancy was within the allowable limits of handling loss. 4. The court held that the second revision petition was maintainable, as it did not amount to a revision or review of the earlier order passed in the first revision petition. The court noted that the circumstances had changed, as the seized registers were now produced and examined, revealing no real discrepancy.
Final Decision: Both revision petitions were allowed, and the impugned proceeding was quashed. No order was made as to costs.
J.N. Hore, J.
1. THESE two revisional applications have been heard together as the same facts and questions of law are involved in both the cases. Both the petitions are under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the impugned proceeding arising out of Alipurduar P.S. Case No.289 of 1990 dated 18.11.90 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and paragraph 18(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967.
2. THE petitioners in the two cases Pradip Kumar Agarwalla and Satya Narayan Agarwalla are partners of M/s. Satya Narayan Rice and Oil Mills and carry on business of rice milling and hold a licence. On 18.11.90 the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Jalpaiguri along with other officers of the Food and supplies Department made a raid during Sunday which was a weekly holiday, at 11.30 A.M. and conducted search from 11.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. and seized various registers, stock books, rice and paddy etc. F.I.R. was lodged by the District Controller with the Alipurduar Police Station giving rise to the present case. THE allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioner failed to maintain true and correct accounts and there was a discrepancy between the stock of paddy and rice shown in the registers and the actual stock found on weighment amounting to violation of paragraph-18(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 and non-writing of the stock board which amounted to violation of Para 3 of the Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1977. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioners in both the cases has challenged the impugned proceeding on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the closing balance of 17.11.70 as per books of accounts in respect of rice and paddy does not reveal real discrepancy and shortage, if any, is covered by the permissible handling loss and the question of violation of paragraph 18 (1) does not and cannot arise at all. Secondly, it has been contended that the paragraph 19(e) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967, so far it authorises to seize the stock of rice and paddy by any of the persons referred to in paragraph 19(1) on the basis of his 'reason to suspect' is ultra vires and beyond the competence of the State Government inasmuch as section 3(2)(j)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act authorises such seizure on the basis of 'reason to believe'. The expressions 'reason to believe' and 'reason to suspect' are not the same. The Central Government by notification No. G.S.R. 1111 dated 24th July, 1967 authorises the State 'Government to make orders under the provisions of section 3(2)(a) to (j) and the provision of section 3(2) (j) relates to search and seizure on the basis of 'reason to believe' and as such the State Government has no competence or authority or jurisdiction to make a provision for seizure on the basis of 'reason to suspect' and the said provision of seizure is contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of section 3(2) (j) and to that extent the same is beyond the competence of the State Government and cannot be sustained in law. The search and seizure in this case are, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction and the proceeding based on the same is also incompetent.
3. MR. Paul, the learned Advocate for the State has contended that the Criminal Revision No.434 of 1991 is not maintainable inasmuch as a previous revisional application being Criminal Revision No.74 of 1991 filed by the petitioner Pradip Kumar Agarwalla for quashing the impugned proceeding was dismissed by this court, so far as the allegation for violation of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 is concerned. It has further been contended that the F.I.R. prima facie reveals commission of an offence punishable under secti
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
