- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the proceedings consequent on the search and seizure of they petitioner's premises made on 18th May, 1966, e quashed and the respondents be directed to return the seized documents and the account books and not to launch any prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the seized documents.
(2.) THE petitioner is a private limited company incorporated in 1946. It carried on the business of commission agents in respect of forward trading in various goods. The Forward Contract (Regulation) Act (No. 74 of 1952) was passed by the Parliament to regulate trading in forward contracts. This Act established the Forward Markets Commission-Under Section 14-A of the Act an association could not carry on business in forward contracts except in accordance with the condition of a certificate of registration granted to it fay the Commission. The petitioner made an application for registration on 15th December, 1962 A registration certificate was granted to the petitioner. By an order issued on 1st June, 1964, the Central Government banned forward trading in many kinds of goods including groundnut oil. The petitioner company was carrying on business in Arhar ki Chuni. This was also one of the goods, forward trading in which was prohibited by the Central Government. The petitioner states that its business came to a standstill and it commenced business again from 4th January, 1965, in forward trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in groundnut oil.
(3.) IT appears that on or about 15th May, 1966, the Forward Markets Commission made a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. C. I. D. . Lucknow, stating that the petitioner was carrying on illegal forward trading business in Vanaspati, linseed oil and mustard seed oil and options in goods at Agra. The Deputy Superintendent of Police. Crimes Branch, C. I. D entrusted the investigation of this matter to the Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has in his affidavit stated that on receipt of this report and believing that a cognizable offence was being committed by the petitioner's firm, he along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. , Deputy Superintendent of Police-in-charge, City Agra, and the Officer-in charge of Police Station Chhata. organised a raid of the petitioner's premises. He has stated that it was apprehended that the petitioner's exchange would nave done away with the incriminating evidence had they got any scent ot the proposed raid. The offences which were being committed were of a cognizable nature and in the circumstances it was not advisable to obtain a warrant for making search. The raid was actually made on 18th May, 1966. The staff oi the petitioner's company was arrested and a large number of books and documents of the petitioner's company "were seized and taken away. The arrested persons were later on enlarged on bait. The search and seizure of the petitioner's books and documents have been challenged on the following grounds:-- (1) That it violated the mandatory provisions of Sections 157 and 165, Cr. P. C. , and (2) That the proceedings contravened the provisions of Section 22-A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 and as such the entire proceedings were null and void. ;