Illegal search and seizure negate the validity of any subsequent charges stemming from that evidence.

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Petitioner is the accused in CC No.1024/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam, which has arisen from Annexure-A final report in Crime No.447/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station. The crime was registered for the offence under Section 3 (2)(c) and (d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 . The allegation against the petitioner is that he had misused domestic gas cylinder for commercial purpose, by making use of it by cooking food in the hotel being conducted by him. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattom Police Station, on a search, seized the cylinder and consequently, the crime was registered.

2. By relying on the decision in Abdul Hameed v.

Station House Officer, Cherpulassery Police Station Crl.M.C.8047/2017 [2013 (2) KHC 386], the learned Magistrate found that the search and seizure were illegal, when it was conducted by a Sub Inspector of Police, who was not authorised to conduct a search and seizure as per the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. The learned Magistrate, after considering the matter under Section 239 Cr.P.C., discharged the petitioner for the offence under Sections 3 and 7 under the Essential Commodities Act. At the same time, the court below, through Annexure-C order, has decided to frame charges for the offence under Section 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act.

3. At any stretch of imagination, the matter cannot be brought within the scope of the offence under Section 9B of the Explosives Act. If as a matter of fact, the said gas cylinder was made use of for domestic purpose, it would not have invited an offence under of the Explosives Act. In such case, when there was only a misuse of the said gas cylinder, when it was used for commercial purpose in a Crl.M.C.8047/2017 hotel, it could not have invited an offence under the Explosives Act. Essentially, when the search and seizure have become illegal, the same cannot be made use of for implicating the petitioner in other offences also. Matters being so, all further proceedings in CC No.1024/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam, which has arisen from Annexure-A final report in Crime No.447/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station, are liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.1024/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam, which has arisen from Annexure-A final report in Crime No.447/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station, are quashed.