The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to exercise inherent jurisdiction under S.561A Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings and prevent abuse of the process of any court.

1. The first of these petitions under S.561-A Cr.P.C., is to quash the entire proceedings conducted by respondents 1 and 2 (the Inspector, Puthur Circle and the Sub-Inspector, Vittal Police Station, Karnataka State) by their search, seizure and transport of 10,976 Kilograms of sandal wood out of the premises of the petitioners' factory in Chemnad village of the Kerala State holding their conduct as High-handed, incompetent and unenforceable in the absence of any prima facie case against them either under S.379 or 411 of the IPC. The other petition is to re-deliver the entire stock of sandal wood so seized at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are a partnership concern of which accused 1 and 2 are partners. The first accused is the Managing Partner. The third accused is the Manager of the concern. The petitioners' factory is located in Chemnad village of the Kasaragod taluk in the Kerala State. Their main business is extraction of oil from sandal wood. They conduct oil extraction from sandal wood under a licence issued by the joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Government of Kerala. They have been making purchase of sandal wood required for extraction of oil from accredited timber dealers. However, for the purchase of less than 10 kilograms of sandal wood, no permit is required. They made a purchase of 8,732.500 kilograms of sandal wood from Abdulla Kunhi. He was a registered owner of a valid property mark seal. The Divisional Forest Officer, Tellicherry, permitted 263 sandal wood trees (made up of 3015 pieces of roots, 1976 pieces of stem and 3501 pieces of branch) to be cut and removed out of survey Nos. ,675-1A and 643/2 of Cheruthazam village and transport the same to the petitioners' factory on the basis of Ext. P1 permit dated 6 3 72 which was issued to Abdulla Kunhi for the aforesaid purpose. The intimation of the issue of the permit was given not only to the subordinate forest officers but also to the Income-tax and Sales-tax officers. On the basis of Ext. P1, a pass had also been issued to Abdulla Kunhi to transport the identical quantity of sandal wood to the petitioners' factory to be completed before 9 3 72. Ext. P2 was the pass issued for that purpose. The petitioners had also got registered C.E.O. property mark under Sandal Wood Transport Rules On the basis of that property mark which was valid upto 313 73, the identical consignment of 8732.500 kilograms of sandal wood were permitted to be stored in the factory. Ext. P3 was the order by which the property mark of the petitioners was registered. They were directed to keep an account of the sandal wood they purchased and stored in the factory with further direction to intimate the District Forest Officer if fresh stock arrived at their premises. Ext. P6 affidavit was sworn to by Abdulla Kunhi that be transported the identical consignment of sandal wood to the petitioners' factory. The petitioners claim exclusive right and possession over the sandal wood which they stocked under Exts. P1 to P3 permits.

3. While so, respondents 1 and 2 visited the factory premises on 31-8-72. They were alleged to have visited the premises on suspicion that the sandal wood trees belonging to the Government forest in Karnataka had been stolen and stored in the factory premises. They took action on the basis of Ext. P4 letter dated 2i 8 '72 from the Divisional Forest Officer, Mangalore, Karnataka, wherein he alleged that some theft of sandal wood standing trees was reported from their forest in Veerakambba and Kolajim ale and, that, therefore, the police shall be more vigilant on the border area between Kerala and Karnataka and seize the illicit transport of sandal wood. However, the second respondent recorded Ext. P4 as first information in the case and registered a crime as crime No. 139/72 of the Vittal Police station. The petitioners alleged that respondents 1 and 2 took action on the basis of a false report made by the third r