STATE Vs. KUPPUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision case by the State. The case of the prosecution as follows: On 2nd January, 1981 at about 11 a.m. the Inspector of Police, A.H.C. entered by surprise Door No.59, S.P.Koil Street, Namakkal, which was a shop of one Kuppuswami dealing in Maida. The Inspector of Police found that the stock did not tally with the entry in the register. He accordingly reported the matter to the Collector of Salem. The Additional Collector of Salem, in pursuance of that report, took up the matter under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and issued notice under section 6-B of the Act to the respondent to show cause in writing as to why the 16 bags of maida seized by the Inspector of Police should not be confiscated by the Government. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Collector, Salem, was not satisfied with the explanation tendered by Kuppuswami to the effect that he lost bills for the purchase of five bags of maida. Accordingly, he found that it was a clear case of contravention of clause 11 of the Tamil Nadu Wheat and Wheat Production (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, and ordered confiscation of 16 bags of maida. Thiru Kuppuswami filed an appeal against that Order to the. Sessions Judge, Salem, who by Judgment dated 29th January, 1982, reversed the order of the Additional Collector on the sole ground that there was nothing on record to show that the Inspector of Police had any reasonable belief that any contravention of the Order has been committed or was being committed or was about to be committed when he entered the premises. It is against this decision that the present revision case is filed.

(2.) THE question whether the reason for the belief of the Inspector should be recorded or not has been considered by this Court in State v. P. Vijayakumari and another, (Crl.R.C.No.438 of 1982, dated 19.12.1984). In that case, which related to Pulses Trade Regulation Order containing in it clause 16(1) a provision exactly similar to clause 11 of the Tamil Nadu Wheat and Wheat Production (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, it was held that it was not necessary for the Officer who effected seizure, to disclose the reasons for his belief and that even assuming that it was necessary, the absence of such report will not render the search itself illegal. THE same principle has to be applied in this case as well. THErefore, the order of the Additional Collector, Salem, ought not to have been set aside by the Sessions Court.

(3.) IN the result, the criminal revision case is allowed, the order of the Sessions Court is set aside and the order of confiscation passed by the Additional Collector is restricted to five bags of maida.