Unauthorized search and seizure by an unauthorised authority vitiates the institution of criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 23.6.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, by which congnizance has been taken against the petitioner under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in connection with Barhi P.S.Case No.290 of 2011 corresponding to G.R.Case No.2792 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

3. The case was lodged alleging therein that on the basis of written report of Supply Inspector cum Incharge Block Supply Officer, Barhi dated 16.10.2011 in which he has alleged that rice 736 bags weighing about 366.20 quintals and wheat 97 bags weighing about 47.85 quintals recovered from the house cum godown of the petitioner. On suspicion of black marketing a case was lodged as against the petitioner for offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by order dated 23.6.2012.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the rice in question was found to be illegally stored and that is why the case has been lodged and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

6. The subject matter of institution of the case are rice and wheat which are alleged to be stored by this petitioner. Clause 2(C) of the Act defines authority which means any authority not below the rank of Inspector of the State Government who is dealing in civil supply. Clause 10 of the Act envisages that an authority authorized by the State Government shall be competent to inspect or summon records or documents and shall conduct search and seizure.

7. Therefore, an authority defined under Clause 2(c) of the Order has to be authorized by the State Government in terms of Clause 10 of the Order. Admittedly the Supply Inspector who had instituted the FIR had never been authorized by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention of the informant being not authorized by the State Government has referred to an order passed in W.P.(S) No.1326 of 2012 in the case of “Krishnapada Aich v. State of Jharkhand”, 2022 SCC ONLine Jhar 1125, wherein it has been held as under:

“In absence of any denial that the Block Supply Officer has never been authorized by the State Government, plea of the petitioner has to be accepted that any search and seizure made by the Block Supply Officer would be quite illegal. Furthermore, the case lodged on the basis of such search and seizure certainly gets vitiated.”

8. In view of above circumstance coupled with the judicial Pronouncement referred to above thus substantiates the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and applying the ratio as has been held in the case of “Krishnapada Aich”(supra), the Supply Inspector having been not authorized under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 for conducting search and seizure the institution of FIR itself is vitiated and therefore having found merit in this application, the same is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 23.6.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in connection with Barhi P.S.Case No.290 of 2011 corresponding to G.R.Case No.2792 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed.

9. This petition is allowed and disposed of.

10. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.