Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) This petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was admitted on 20th of Jan., 1978, for hearing before a Division Bench. On 8th of Feb., 1980. the Division Bench ordered on the prayer of the petitioners that the petitioner be treated as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is how this has come to be listed before me.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Shri Lajpal Singh, respondent No. 2, Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Rajpuru, accompained by A. S. I, Gurbachan Singh who was investigating the case, F. I. R. No. 359 dated 27th of Nov., 1977, under Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station Rajpura, registered at the instance of an Overseer of the Public Works Department for the theft of drums of bitumen, came to the business of the premises of the petitioners in Shop-cum-Flat No 13-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh on 3rd of Dec., 1977. On search of the premises of the petitioners, they seized 299 drums of bitumen, Out of these 39 drums were identified to be the stolen property in case F I.R. No. 359. The other drums were also suspected to be stolen property and were taken into possession. The drums taken into possession were removed by the said police officers.
(3.) The petitioners have filed this petition on various grounds attributing motive to Shri Om Parkash Gupta, respondent No 3 under whom the petitioner-firm is a tenant in S.C.F No. 13-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. It was alleged that as the petitioners did not agree to vacate the premises he, in collaboration with the police officers, brought about the raid to harass them. Various other grounds were taken in the petition, but at the time of arguments, stress was laid on only two of these. The first is that the search effected by the police officers was in violation of the provisions of section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Cod), the second objection was that immediately after the search, intimation about the goods seized was not given to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the areas.;