K. KUNNIMALAYAN CHETTIAR, PROPRIETOR, SIVARAM RICE MILLS, ERACHAKULAM, THOVALAI TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT Vs. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, NAGARCOIL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition it to quash the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 23rd November 1973 by which he had directed the petitioner and his brother to surrender 91 bags of paddy within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. On 19th May, 1973 by a surprise inspection the Taluk Supply Officer with a Vigilance party seized 91 bags of paddy from the petitioner, but the Taluk Supply Officer did not lift the stock, but allowed physical possession with the petitioner after obtaining an undertaking that he would surrender the said 91 bags to the Taluk Supply Officer on demand. The petitioner in his affidavit contended that though the purchase of these 91 bags by him was supported by valid bills, it was not entered in the account books by the part -time Accountant as the purchase was made on the previous day late in the evening. He also contended that the seizure itself was contrary to Ss. 102 and 103 of the Crl. P.C. in that two or more independent witnesses of the locality were not present at the time of inspection, nor they have attested any mabazar and that therefore the seizure itself was contrary to law and illegal.

(2.) R.14(3) of the Tamilnadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order 1968 provides that the provisions of Ss. 102 and 103 of the Cr. P.C., relating to search and seizure shall, to far as may be apply to searches and seizures under the rule. There is no dispute that the search and seizure effected by the Taluk Supply Officer was under R. 14. There is also no dispute that the provisions of Ss. 102 and 103, Crl. P.C. had not been complied with. On these facts, therefore, the decisions of the court in Mangudi v/s. State of Tamilnadu, 1971 -2 M.L.J. 27;, 1970 L.W. Crl. 278 Abdul Latif v/s. Collector of Tiruchirapalli, 1971 L.W. Cr. 39 W.P. 2443/74 would clearly apply. The ratio of these judgments is to the effect that the seizure effected contrary to Ss. 102 and 103, Crl. P.C. was illegal.

(3.) But the learned Government Pleader contended that Ss. 102 and 103, Crl. P.C. are not mandatory and in a case where there is no dispute about the quantity of paddy seized or the factum of leaving that with the person from whom they were seized, the seizure itself could not be invalidated on the ground of mere non -compliance of Ss. 102 and 103, Crl. P.C. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that on these grounds the Government have also preferred an appeal W.A. 163/76 against the decision in W.P. 2443/74. However, the decisions of this court already referred to, clearly hold that contravention of the provisions of S.102 and 103 Crl. P.C. would invalidate seizure itself. I am bound by these decisions until they are reversed or set aside by a Division Bench or any higher court. In the result, I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order. The rule nisi is made absolute. No costs.