NIRANJAN BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case leading to filing of the revision in short is that on 20.5.2010, accused, Rajkumar Sharma loaded 250 bags of P.D.S. wheat weighing 125 quintals in the truck bearing registration No.ORY-5418 at F.C.I, depot, Ranital to deliver the (sic) to the depot Manager, OSCSC Ltd. Keonjhar but while he was unloading the same in the godown of Tapaswini Behera of whom the petitioner is the power of Attorney holder at Ranital under Bhadrak Block, the S.I. of police Bhadrak (Rural) P.S. P.S. seized the P.D.S. wheat along with the truck and prepared seizure list in respect thereof as per Annexure-3 series and reported the incident to the I.I.C., Bhadrak (Rural) P.S. Accordingly, Bhadrak P.S. Case No.169 of 2010 was registered under-Sections 407/420/411/34 of I.P.C. along with Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The matter was investigated into and charge sheet was filed thereunder, as prima facie it was found that all the accused persons, including the petitioner conspired to misappropriate the P.D.S. wheat by cheating and committing breach of trust and to screen themselves from the alleged crime, the co-accused, Santosh Kumar Marandi, the Marketing Inspector, Anandapur and lifting Officer-in-charge, Keonjhar without having any authority directed the petitioner in writing to receive and keep the aforesaid P.D.S. wheat in his godown on the false plea that the truck developed mechanical defect wherein wheats bags were being carried.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the S.I. of police Bhadrak (Rural) P.S. is not authorized under Clause-23 of P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 to search and seizure the P.D.S. wheat and truck. So the search and seizure being illegal, the entire criminal proceeding including the seizure of the P.D.S. wheat and the truck and the impugned order of taking cognizance deserve to be quashed.3, On the contrary, learned Addl Standing Counsel contends that at the time of seizure of P.D.S. wheat along with the truck, on 21.5.2011 the I.O., A.K. Rout was in-charge of Inspector Bhadrak (Rural) P.S. In terms of Clause-23 of P.D.S. (Control) Order 2008, police officers not below the rank of Inspector having been authorized to effect search and seizure by Govt. Notification No. 7599 dated 29.4.2010, the I.O. is competent to seize P.D.S. wheat and the truck in question. Learned Addl.Standing Counsel further submits that even if it is presumed that the S.I. Mr Rout who was in-charge of the Inspector lacks authority to search and seize the P.D.S. wheat along with the truck, at best the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act cannot be attracted against the petitioner. But the offence under Sections 407/420/201/411/120-B of I.P.C. can squarely be attracted against him and the co-accused persons since they conspired to commit breach of trust by unloading the P.D.S. wheat in a place other than the place of destination in order to sale the same in the black market and thereby cheated the Government and to screen the offence against them, the marketing inspector, Co-accused Santosh Kumar Marandi wrote a letter to the petitioner to keep the wheat in his godown on the pretext that the truck suffered break down, even though he has no authority to write so and the vehicle was found to be fit to ply by the M.V.I.. Bhadrak.