- (1.) S. N. Sahai, J. This is a petition for quashing of the F. I R. contained in Annexure 2. The F. I. R. shows that on 27th July, 1989 petitioner Raj Kishore Misra was bringing wheat in a truck numbered UPH-8010 from the side of Suratganj, S. I. , R. N. Misra became suspicious and he took a search of the truck at about 10. 00 p. m. on that date. He found that 100 bags of wheat were kept in the truck and there were incomplete papers relating to the same with the petitioner or the truck driver. On the basis of these facts, he seized the truck and the wheat and lodged the F. I. R, on 27th July, 1989 at 11. 30 p. m. at P. S. Mohammadpur district Barabanki. A case was registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitioner for the contravention of Uttar Pradesh Wheat (Levy) Order, 1989 which was issued on 7th June, 1989. Annexure S-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that the truck and the foodgrains were given in the superdgi of the petitioner by an order, dated 19th August, 1939 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki on furnishing two sureties.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Clause 3 of the Levy Order referred to above imposes a legal obligation on every licensed dealer to sell to the State Government (through the Controller or his nominee) at the scheduled price at a purchase centre a certain percentage of wheat in his stock, as described in that clause. Clause 6 of the Levy Order confers power on any Enforcement Officer to search any premises, vehicle or vessel and seize wheat or wheat products in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of the Order has been, is being or is about to be committed and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stock so seized in Court and for their safe custody pending such production. The search and seizure may be made by the Enforcement Officer as provided under the said clause with a view to securing compliance with this Order or to satisfying him self that this Order has been complied with. The Sub-Inspector of a Police DO doubt is an Enforcement Officer within the meaning of Clause 2 (b) of the said Order but before he could exercise power under Clause 6 and search the truck in question and seize the foodgrains it is necessary for him to be satisfied that the search is to be made to securing compliance of the order. In other words, the necessary facts should have been in existence indicating that the contravention of Clause 3 of the said order has been, is being or is about to be committed. The contravention could have been commuted if the petitioner was a licensed dealer and he did not sell to the State Government at he scheduled price at a purchase centre. The nature of the papers stock. The truck was searched and the wheat was seized not at a purchase centre. The nature of the papers not required to be in possession of the petitioner at the time of movement of the wheat is also not disclosed. There is no restriction on movement of the wheat as such. The facts stated in F. I. R. do not disclose that a breach of Clause 3 bad been, was being or was to be committed and consequently the provisions of Clause 6 were not attracted and no offence can be said to have been com mitted by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid Levy Order. The learned Standing Counsel has referred to the fact that during investigation certain incomplete papers were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State, it has been asserted that the papers do not show that the petitioner was carrying levy paid wheat. If the F. I. R. does not disclose any offence, the said papers and the inference drawn from them will not be of any avail. We are, therefore, of the view that the F. I. R. is liable to be quashed for the above reasons and no further proceedings can be taken under law m respect thereof.
(3.) WE consequently allow the writ petition and quash the impugned F. I. R. and direct that no further proceedings in pursuance thereof shall be taken against the petitioner. The wheat and the truck in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner. Petition allowed. .;