A search and seizure conducted in violation of the mandatory procedural prescriptions in the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers' (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1968, and Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code is illegal and anything recovered during such a search must be returned.

ORDER :- The petitioner, a licensee under the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers' (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Order, was carrying on business as a wholesaler in rice and paddy in Pallathur, Karaikudi sub-taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The first respondent and the Circle Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell. C.I.D., and a constable visited the place of business of the petitioner, entered into it and wanted the petitioner to show his accounts. The entry according to the petitioner was at about 4 a.m., but according to the respondents, it was at about 6 a.m. The officers who entered into the premises and began to search the same did not have any warrant to search the premises; nor were they accompanied by two respectable witnesses who are the inhabitants of the locality. It appears that the officers who conducted the raid seized certain account books of the petitioner besides 56 bags of raw rice, which were found inside the business premises. Various contentions were raised by the petitioner in support of the writ of mandamus filed by him. They all relate to the factual situations and concern themselves with the merits of the petition. In the light of the arguments addressed by Mr. V. P. Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is unnecessary for me to deal with such objections in the affidavit, relating to the merits of the case, as they are not raised before me. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the search is illegal, as there has been a violation of the conditions prescribed for such search and seizure specified in clause 14 of the Order. The argument proceeds that the officers who conducted the raid, not having followed the statutory provisions of Sections 102 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the rule nisi has to be made absolute and a direction issued to the respondents to return the stocks of rice seized by them, consequent upon such illegal search. In the counter-affidavit, the contentions on merits have been met. On the question which is primarily in issue, the respondents' case is that a warrant is not required for checking the accounts and stocks of a dealer functioning under the Order referred to above. It is also contended that the provisions in Sections 102 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code were followed, because the inspection was carried out by the police officers in the presence of the Taluk Supply Officer and also in the presence of the licensee. As already stated, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case, because the only point of law raised is whether the search has been conducted in violation of the prescribed statutory conditions.

2. The only question therefore is, whether clause 14 of the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers' (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1968 has been followed. Clause 14 of the said Order vests with the competent officers, powers of entry, seizure and search. "Competent Officer" means any officer of the Revenue or Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of Revenue Inspector or any officer of the Police Department not below the rank of head constable. In this case, the raid was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his constable, but in the presence of the Taluk Supply Officer. Clause 14 enables the competent officer to inspect any book, account or other document in the control of a licensee, seize any such account book or document, enter and search any premises, seize any stock of paddy or rice, in respect of which the competent officer has reason to believe that any provision of this Order has been, is being or about to be contravened. The subjective satisfaction of the competent officer in the matter of the exercise of the power vested in him in this clause appears to be the primary ingredient enabling such competent officer to enter, search and seize. What all is required to be done after such seizure is that the competent officer shall give a receipt for wha