TAPAN KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact giving rise to filing of the writ petition is that on 24.7.2009 at about 10.30 P.M. while the A.S.I. of Remuna Golei Out -Post along with some constables was engaged in patrol duty, he received information that four trucks being loaded with P.D.S. wheat were standing near NESCO office, instead of being driven to their respective destination, with a view to black marketing the wheat. So, the A.S.I., Remuna Golei Out -post lodged a written report before the Inspector In -Charge Industrial Area Police Station, Balasore, on the basis of which P.S. Case No. 110 of 2009 was registered under Sections 468/471/120 -B of I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred as E.C. Act) giving rise to C.T. Case No. 1381 of 2009 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. The case was investigated into, in course of which, the I.O. (A.S.I. of Remuna Golei Out -Post) seized the wheat along with the trucks, prepared seizure list in respect thereof and reported this fact to the Collector, Balasore and requested him to initiate a proceeding under Section 6 (A) of the E.C. Act. After completion of due formalities, the Collector initiated Essential Commodities Case No. 32 of 2009. As an interim measure, on 14.8.2009 the Collector, Balasore directed the local C.S.O. to account for the wheat in the P.D.S. quota of Balasore Municipality and to reduce its quota proportionately and to deposit the sale proceeds thereof in appropriate account of the Government.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a flour mill. He arranged truck No. OR -01L 8713 belonging to Manas Kumar Jena on hire, purchased the wheat from free market, got the same loaded in the said truck and while the loaded truck was standing in front of Industrial Police Area, Balasore P.S., the A.S.I., Remuna Golei Out -Post seized the wheat along with the truck illegally. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in E.C. Case No. 32 of 2009, set aside the interim order dated 14.8.2009 and to release the stock in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that as per Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C. any police officer can seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances, which creates a suspicion of commission of any offence. No notification under clause 23 of P.D.S. Control (Order), 2008 vesting power to a police officer to make search and seizure is required. In the present case the driver of the petitioner's truck instead of driving the truck to its destination, drove it to some other place to. sell the wheat in black market. Since the conduct of the driver created suspicion of commission of an offence under Section 6 of the E.C. Act, the police officer rightfully seized the wheat along with the truck. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 came into force with effect from 19.3.2008. The notification under clause 23 of the said order was issued on 29.3.2008. The said notification can not over side the E.C. Act.