IN RE: P.M. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Dharmapuri division confirming the order of the Collector of Dharmapuri confiscating 2655 liters of kerosene to Government under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The facts are: -

(2.) THE learned counsel now appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there has been no mahazar for the seizure of the kerosene. He invited my attention to the provisions of Ss. 102 and 103, Crl. P. C. and contended that failure to comply with those requirements makes the seizure illegal and vitiates the entire proceedings. My attention was invited to Seharaj, In re, a decision rendered by me. It should be noted that Seharaj, In re : 1979 L.W (Crl.) 134 should not be understood as laying down a proposition that any irregularity in following the procedure under Ss.102 and 103, Crl. P. C. vitiates the entire proceedings. It should also be noted that the revision in that case was allowed not because the proceedings are vitiated, but on the ground that neither the order of the Collector nor the judgment of the Sessions Judge says as to what offence the revision petitioners have committed. But, in this case the seizure of the kerosene under a search list is not disputed. I find from the search list that the signature of Ramamurthi, the son of the revision petitioner has been obtained. It has been proved in this case that kerosene was seized from the revision petitioner's shop, It is also seen that there has been a shortage of 145 liters of kerosene. It is also clear that there has been a violation of clauses 5(3) and 18 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973.

(3.) IN Seetharomayya v. Du Revenue Officer, Chittoor, A.I.R. 1977 A.P. 101 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held -