The seizure of property under Section 102 of the Code must be justified and supported by evidence, and prosecution for an offence is barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code if the prescribed period for taking cognizance of the offence has expired.

1. Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Delhi Bitumen Sales Agency registered is a firm carrying on business of purchase and sale of bitumen. It has its office at Delhi and various branches all over India including one branch at show-room No. 13-A, Sector 7-C Chandigarh. Shri S.C. Jain, petitioner No. 2, is one of its partners. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 is one of the landlords of show-room No. 13-A mentioned above and petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under him. Respondent No. 3 made an attempt to evict the petitioners from these premises by taking proceedings for their eviction in the Courts but could not succeed. Therefore, he in collusion with Govind Parkash respondent No. 4 who is working as a Sectional Officer in Punjab P.W.D. (BandR) at Rajpura lodged a false report Annexure P/1 with the Station House Officer, Rajpura respondent No. 2 that 35 drums of bitumen belonging to the P.W.D. lying on the road side had been stolen on the night between 26th and 27th Nov. 1977. On the basis of this First Information Report, respondent No. 2 accompanied by some other police officers besides respondents Nos. 3 and 4 raided the aforesaid premises of the petitioner on the 3rd of Dec. 1977 at sun set and disregarding the provision of search and seizure as contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (for short the Coder took away the entire stock of bitumen with the petitioner which comprised of 387 drums and a new Atlas cycle saying that this entire property was being taken to Rajpura Police Station. According to the recovery memo Annexure P/2 issued by Gurbachan Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Rajpura 39 drums full of bitumen were said to have been recovered as case property in connection with First Information Report Annexure P/1 and 260 drums full of bitumen along with an Atlas cycle (new) had been taken possession of under Sec.102 of the Code. The petitioners state that the remaining drums full of bitumen out of 387 had wrongfully not been accounted for and were forcibly removed from its premises. After these goods were removed front the premises of the petitioners its partners were threatened with arrest and other dire consequences if they did not vacate the aforesaid premises. Apprehending their arrest they applied for anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of the Code which was granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 4-9-1981. They also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3932 of 1977 in this Court on 9-12-1977 for a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed according to law and to refrain from pressurising the petitioners from vacating the premises as tenants under respondent No. 3. They also sought issuance of a writ of certiorari holding that the search of their premises on 3-12-1977 was illegal and void besides a direction to the respondents to hand over the goods illegally carried away from the aforesaid premises of the petitioners. This writ petition was later treated as a petition under Sec.482 of the Code and was eventually dismissed by K.S. Tiwana, J. (as he then was) vide order dated 6-5-1980 Annexure P/4 requiring the petitioners to avail of the remedy available to them under the ordinary law.

2. It is further averred by the petitioners that they filed about a dozen applications from time to time in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura for the return of the seized goods. Each such application was sent to respondent No. 2 for report. It was only on the last three or four applications that vague reports were made by him and the property was not produced. They contend that no further proceedings on the First Information Report Annexure P/1 have been taken since the Year 1977. They point out that the period of limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of an offence under Ss.379/411 Indian Penal Code was three years as prescribed by cl.(c) of Sec.468(2) of the Code. Hence no prosecution can now be launched on the basis of the First Information Report Annexure P/1. They furth