MAHESWARI OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2008-4-30
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 17,2008

Maheswari Oil Mills Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the proceedings of arbitrary and illegal seizure dated 29.6.2005 of food grains, edible oil and other commodities without valid grounds in connection with Deoghar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005, dated 27.5.2005.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this petition are that respondent No. 2; the Executive Magistrate on 25.5.2005 visited the premises of M/s. Radhaghani Oil Mills as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and conducted a search. Further stated during search some sample of mustered oil were collected to ascertain whether the oil contained polluting chemicals or not. During the search, some inventory was prepared of items available in the premises. The informant further suspected that the items available in the shop were not procured properly. He further mentioned that the persons employed there did not get proper remuneration and there were violations of Factories Act, Minimum Wages Act, Sales Tax Act etc. This matter was reported to Officer -in -charge, Deoghar Police Station on the basis of which Deoghar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005 dated 27.5.2005 has been registered for various sections of IPC as well as other Acts. However, the seizure was made on 29.6.2005 showing five items vide annexure -4 found less in quantity as mentioned in the FIR and those available items were thereafter handed over on personal bond for the purpose of preserving it. The said seizure as well as the present jimmanama mentioned above have been challenged in this writ.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the whole procedure adopted by respondent No. 2 was illegal arbitrary and against the provisions of law. It is submitted that the informant has not seized any item on 25.5.2005 though in the FIR the stock position of shop has been mentioned. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has no authority to conduct the search and further to seize those items which were available in the shop for regular commercial purposes under the provisions of law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.