- (1.) This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of an appropriate order/direction for quashing the order dated 7-9-2002 passed in Representation No.1 of 2002, whereby the Designated Authority-cum-Commissioner under the Act rejected the representation of the petitioner.
(2.) Case of the petitioner is that a case bearing Latehar P. S. Case No. 70/2002 under Sections 420/120B and 379, IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (hereinafter referred to as "POTA") was registered. In connection with investigation of this case, the I.O. of the case searched the godown of the petitioner and sealed the same. The petitioner earlier filed a W.P. (Cr.) No. 247/2002, wherein an order was passed on 19-8-2002 whereby petitioner was directed to approach the designated authority for appropriate relief and the petitioner approached the appropriate authority and filed a representation for appropriate relief and the designated authority, after hearing all the parties concerned, came to a finding that I.O., who is SDPO, Barwadih, searched the godown under Section 165, Cr. P. C. and his action was in accordance with law and, therefore, no illegality was found in sealing the godown in question and, therefore, the representation was rejected. As against the order dated 7-9-2002, passed by the designated authority, the petitioner has preferred this criminal writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the designated authority is wholly misconceived as search has not been made under Section 165, Cr. P. C. but search has actually been made under Section 7 of the POTA. For making search and seizure under Section 7 of the POTA, there is a provision that before making search the IO has to obtain permission of the DGP, Jharkhand and he has to furnish information of search and seizure within 48 hours to the designated authority but no such procedure has been followed and as a result of such search and seizure the petitioner has been put to a heavy loss as Kendu leaves are stored in the godown, which is perishable articles and as a result of sealing of the godown for quite a long time, the petitioner has sustained a heavy loss. Provision of Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is quoted hereinbelow:- "7. Powers of investigating officers and appeal against order of Designated Authority:- (1) If an officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) investigating an offence committed under this Act, has reason to believe that any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted, represents proceeds of terrorism, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the Director General of the Police of the State in which such property is situated, make an order seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, or of the Designated Authority, before whom the properties seized or attached are produced and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby provided that where an organization is declared as a terrorist organization under this Act and the investigating officer has reason to believe that any person has custody of any property which is being used or is intended to be used for the purpose of such terrorist organization, he may, by an order in writing, seize or attach such property. (3) The investigating officer shall duly inform the Designated Authority within forty-eight hours of the seizure or attachment of such property. . . . . .";