STATE Vs. P VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the State against an order of the Sessions Court, Salem reversing the order of confiscation passed by the Collector of Salem.

(2.) THE facts are summarily as follows: On 25th June, 1981, the Taluk Supply Officer, Salem, inspected the premises of the respondents and found them doing business in pulses without a valid licence as required by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pulses (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1978. THEy were also found to be in possession of unaccounted stock of 6 bags of toor dhall and 10 bags of black-gram dhall. THE Taluk Supply Officer seized 16 bags of pulses for contravention of clause 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pulses (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1978 and reported to the Collector for confiscation. THE Collector, after following the procedure prescribed by law ordered confiscation of the 16 bags. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court, in which it was contended that there was nothing on record to show that for the purpose of the surprise inspection, before entering into the premises of the respondent, the Taluk Supply Officer had any reason to believe that a contravention of the provisions of the Order has been committed. It was argued that on account of the absence of such reason, the search, the subsequent seizure and the order of confiscation were illegal and liable to be set aside. THE Appellate Authority accepted in full the contention of the trader and set aside the order of the Collector and directed that the entire stock of pulses seized be returned to the trader. It is against that order dated 23rd March, 1982 that the present revision is filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents placed also before me two decisions-one by a single Judge of this Court in M. Perumal v. State, (1980) T.L.N.J. 171: (1980) L.W. (Crl.) 222, who held, while applying the ruling, referred to above, that when there is nothing on record to show that before entering the business premises, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Food Cell, C.I.D., had reason to believe that there was a contravention, the search was illegal and consequently the order of confiscation is not valid. THE other decision placed before me by the learned Counsel for the respondent is a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Ramachandra v. Government of India, A.I.R. 1979 A.P. 28. While dealing with the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1969, clause 11 which contains provisions akin to those of clause 16 of the Order under which the present seizure was effected, it held as follows: Clause 11(b) does not admit of any doubt that at the time of entering or searching the premises, there must be reasonable belief that a contravention of the provisions of the Order has been or is likely to be committed. Thatreason to believeis a condition precedent to vest any jurisdiction in the officers either to enter the premises or to make any search In the absence of such reasonable belief, the entry and the consequent search becomes vitiated. THE mere fact that subsequently the officers taking search discovered some discrepancy in the stock on hand and the position of stock as entered on the notice board, cannot make good the reasonable belief which an officer is bound to have initially before he makes an entry. Clause (h) also makes such belief necessary before entering the premises.