HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.7.1999 passed.in Chaibasa Sadar P.S.Case No. 4/97 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1/97, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, E.CAct, Chaibasa took cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner.
(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of the application are that one Birendra Prasad, Child Development Project Officer and Incharge, Block Supply Office, Noamundi made a written complaint before the police that on 13 -14.2.1997 he inspected the business establishment of the petitioner from 4 p.m. and 310 bags of rice (300 quintals) and 49 bags of wheat were found in one godown and thereafter verification was conducted in another godown situated to the west of Sultania Automobiles. In the aforesaid godown 15 items, as stated in the written report, were found including Suji, Chana, Atta and 3 bags of sugar. Thereafter verification was conducted in the rented godown of Arjun Lodha and in one of the fwo rooms of the said godown wheat, masoor dal, chana dal, rice and different brands of refined oil and Dalda were found. In the southern room also rice, Chana dal, Dhania, Khesari Dal, Mung Dal, Methi, Arhar Dal, Matar, Chana etc. were found. In all 457 bags of rice, 75 bags of wheat and 307 tins of edible oil were found. The stock register was inspected and it was found that upto 13.2.1997, 310 bags of rice and 49 bags of wheat had been entered in the register. There is no entry of any other commodities. No fortnightly return had been submitted in the Block Supply Office except for rice. Further in the licence, there is reference of only one godown but there is no mention of the other godowns, from where several commodities were recovered. The allegation is that some food grains were kept concealed in unauthorised godowns, which constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The commodities, which were found in the two unauthorised godowns, were seized under a seizure list and made over to the police. On the basis of that, a case was registered and investigation was carried out and after investigation, the police submitted chargesheet in the case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that after lodging the FIR a proposal was sent to the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Collector, Chaibasa for confiscation of the seized articles and on receipt of the said proposal the Confiscation Case No. 8/97 was instituted by the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Collector, Chaibasa and the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why seized articles be not confiscated under Section 6 -A of the EC Act on the ground that as per the allegation, the petitioner was having unauthorized godown and that he has not submitted the fortnightly return to the Block Supply Office. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause and specifically stated that search and seizure made by the Child Development Project Officer is illegal and he is not a person authorized under clause 30 of the Unification Order to conduct search and seizure. The storage of food grains in the house owned by Arjun Lodha was made after intimation was given to the District Supply Officer, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa on 11.1.1997 and he has got no connection with the godown located in the West of Sultania Automobile. The Deputy Commissioner -cum -Collector, Chaibasa, by order dated 30.10.1998 was pleased to drop the confiscation proceeding and directed release of the seized articles. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner -cum -Collector, Chaibasa, vide order dated 30.10.1998, dropped the confiscation proceeding on the valid ground but the police after investigation submitted final form as an error of law and on receipt of final form and after perusal of same, the learned Special Judge, EC Act, Chaibasa, without applying his judicial mind, took cognizance under Section 7 of the EC Act by his order dated 16.7.1999. It was further submitted that petitioner is a wholesale dealer of the foodgrains and edible oil and holds a valid licence bearing No. 67 of 1985. It was also submitted that the Child Development Project Officer was not authorized to make search and seizure and further that the Child Development Project Officer was appointed as Incharge Block Supply Officer by the order of the District Supply Officer dated 20.11.1996 and not by the State Government. Further the Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar Chaibasa, issued a memo No. 455 dated 10.7.1997, whereby and whereunder instead of Shri Birendra Prasad, Shri Banedic Kujur was made Incharge as Block Development Officer and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, Birendra Prasad was not authorized under EC Act to make search and seizure of the articles. Besides a number of pleas has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that FIR was made without any verification from the District Supply Office and the godown of the petitioner required urgent repairs and moreover the petitioner was expecting fresh stock of trade articles and commodities latest by the 1st week of January, 1997 and since the place was in badly damaged condition, the petitioner had no other alternative than to take two rooms on hire for temporary storage of the commodities on 7.1.1997 owned by one Arjun Lodha and the petitioner on 1.1.1997 intimated to the District Supply Officer, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa regarding temporary hiring of the premises for the godown purposes giving the location of the godown, whereby the commodities are being stored during the course of repair instead of godown mentioned in the licence.
(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the final form was submitted as an error of law and also the fact that by order dated 30.10.1998 the confiscation proceeding was dropped, there is some substance in the quashing application.;