KOYAKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bullock cart carrying 592 coconut husks was proceeding along the National Highway (Alleppey-Quilon) on the First day of February, 1983. This was noticed by PW 1, an Inspector appointed under the Coconut Huska Control Order, 1973 (for short 'the Order'). He stopped the cart near the Coconut Research Centre, Krishnapuram and questioned the petitioner who was riding the cart. It was revealed during such questioning that the petitioner was transporting coconut husks for one Aliyarkunju, and that no permit was issued to transport the husks as per Clause.9 of the Order. PW 1, thereupon seized the contraband load under a mahazar (Ext. P1) and reported the matter to the local police station. The bullock cart, the coconut husks and the petitioner were produced before the police station. A crime case was registered on the basis of the report and after investigation, the case was charge sheeted, against the petitioner and the said Aliyarkunju. The Special Court (for trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act), Trichur before which the case was tried found the petitioner guilty of the offence under S.7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause.8(1) of the Order. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) Ext. P1 mahazar was signed by PW 1 who is its author. PWs.1 and 3 are the other two persons who signed the said mahazar. Both of them were members of the mobile squad led by PW.1 formed for the purpose of checking and inspecting vehicles or places used for contravention of the provisions of the Order. No other independent person had signed the mahazar.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the search and seizure of the cart and husks were illegal on account of non compliance with the provisions of S.100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"). Clause.16 of the Order confers powers on Inspectors appointed under the Order to do certain acts enumerated in the said clause. Power to search any vehicle, vessel or receptacle in which the officer has reason to believe that a contravention of the Order has been, or is being or is about to be made, is included in the said clause. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the search conducted by PW 1 would have been in exercise of the aforesaid power. Sub clause (2) of Clause.16 of the Order reads as follows: