- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel has made available for our perusal the record which includes the panchnama dated December 20, 21, 2002, the prohibitory order dated December 21, 2002, and order dated January 3, 2003. So also the panchnama dated January 3, 2003. We also find on record at page 36 revocation order dated December 21, 2002, revoking the prohibitory order under Section 132(3) at 3.15 pm. Likewise the prohibitory order is available at page 35 which is dated December 21, 2002. After revoking the prohibitory order dated December 21, 2002, there is nothing to show that any fresh prohibitory order was clamped. Then the panchnama dated December 20, 21, 2002, does not show that there a search remained incomplete or was continued to be completed on any subsequent date in close proximity or in continuity. Thus, it is clear that the entire episode was over on December 21, 2002, and therefore, the prohibitory order was revoked. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. It was contended that the panchnama dated January 3, 2003 was required to be prepared at that time, and there is nothing to show, much less to assume, that at that time it was prepared with intention to extend the time limit. Suffice it to say that nothing was done on January 3, 2003 except merely preparing the panchnama commencing the search at 5.05 pm and concluding at 5.15 pm. In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed.
(3.) THE record is returned to learned Counsel.;