GUPTA, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for damages has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand, vide judgment and decree dated 6. 10. 1983.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is an Agriculturist who undertakes agricultural operation by scientific system. According to the plaintiff, in the year, 1976, internal National Emergency was promulgated and Family Planning Campaign was being implemented at the Government level and, in this process, the defendants No. 2 & 3, on 7. 10. 1976, are said to have persuaded, rather forced the plaintiff to motivate persons for sterilisation operations. THE plaintiff, on account of his wife ailing, declined. Consequently, being annoyed, the defendant No. 2 asked the plaintiff to get himself operated and on that count, nursed ill-will against the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that actuated by this malice, the defendants No. 2 and 3 undertook the search of the house of the plaintiff where his brother and their families reside and when nothing objectionable was found, wheat bags and wheat heaps, which were laying on the Chabutari, in side the Pol and on either side of the Pol, were seized and in the seizure memo, even the plaintiff's contention about the stock being belonging to the two brothers, was not noticed. This search and seizure adversely affected the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of the villagers and neighbours and this was done with intention to disgrace and undermine the plaintiff's reputation. As a result of this incident, according to the plaintiff, the villagers and inhabitants of neighbouring villages started assessing the plaintiff to be anti-social element and thus, his social status was lowered. The plaintiff also contended that the defendants No. 2 & 3 also wanted to have the plaintiff arrested and with that end in view, a complaint u/ss. 107 & 151, Cr. P. C. , was sent to the Police Station, Rail Magra, while, as a matter of fact, there was no apprehension of breach of peace. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that after the seizure of the wheats, proceedings were initiated u/s. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), in defending which proceedings, the plaintiff had to incur expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,500/-, which he has claimed as damages and has also claimed Rs. 10,000/-as general damages. Thus, in substance, the suit is for recovery of damages for a tort and for illegal search and seizure of the plaintiff's house. The defendants have filed though different written statements, but then, more or less, they are on identical lines. The substance of the defence is that the whole story of motivation for sterilisation operations is false, and there was no malice or grudge entertained by the defendants. There was no misuse or abuse of any power by the defendants No. 2 & 3. It is positively contended that the plaintiff is Mahajan and carries on business and had stocked the wheat in violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Orders promulgated thereunder and was holding unaccounted stock for the purpose of sale. It was also contended that the theory of wheat belonging to the two brothers is an after thought one. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is a dealer and the place where the wheat was stocked was a place of business and had not been declared as purchase centre. According to the defendants, the plaintiff could not hold a stock of more than 5 quintals and that, even if the plaintiff claims himself to be a producer, still he is not entitled to stock more than twenty or five quintals. Thus, there was a clear violation of the provisions of the Rules. It was contended that the action taken by the defendants does not fall within the expression `malicious prosecution'. Likewise, it was contended that whatever had been done by the defendants, was in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and the provisions of the Rajasthan Wheat (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Order, 1973') and the Orders issued there under, with the result that since this action was taken without any malice, by virtue of Sec. 15 of the Essential Commodities Act, they cannot be sued. Regarding the filing of the complaint against the plaintiff u/ss. 107 & 151, Cr. P. C. the allegation was denied and then, it was also contended that this does not amount to malicious prosecution, the details of the expenditure alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiff, were also denied. Defendants further took the stand that by virtue of Sec. 15 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the defendants are entitled to compensatory costs. The learned trial Court, on the pleadings, framed six issues and vide judgment dated 6. 10. 1983, has dismissed the suit.
(3.) I have gone through the record available with the Court as the records consisting of the statements and documents are not available and appear to have been weeded out, whatever evidence was available with the learned counsel for the parties, has been perused, with their consent. The learned trial Court, while deciding issue No. 1, has found that no proceedings were initiated, nor any complaint was made u/ss. 107 & 151, Cr. P. C. From the record, I also do not find any such proceedings to have been taken against the plaintiff. Consequently, this finding does not require any interference. So far as the main question about the search and seizure being illegal, it is not in dispute that on 7. 10. 1976, a search was under-taken of the house of the plaintiff and therein 39 bags full of wheat were seized, purportedly in violation of the Order. It is also not in dispute that vide Ex. 1, the learned Collector had accepted the contention of the present plaintiff about the wheat being of yield of his own cultivation and ordered the release of the goods to the plaintiff and had also ordered the complaint to be dismissed. It is significant to note that even in this order, the learned Collector had proceeded, inter alia, on the basis that the wheat belonged to two brothers and after considering the revenue records, it was found that it is probable, it was also held that at the time of checking, the Authority concerned should have satisfied himself as to whether the stock is of his yield for cultivation of two brothers, as the checking officer has seized the goods taking it to be of one brother only. ;