NAWAZZUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of an appropriate order/direction for quashing the order dated 7 -9 -2002 passed in respondent No. 1 of 2002, whereby the Designated Authority -cum -Commissioner under the Act rejected the representation of the petitioner.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that a case bearing Latehar P.S. Case No. 70/2002 under Ss. 420/120 -B and 379 IRC and Ss. 3, 4, 5, 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (hereinafter referred to as "POTA") was registered. In connection with investigation of this case, the I.O. of the case searched the godown of the petitioner and sealed the same. The petitioner earlier filed a W.P. (Cr.) No. 247/2002, wherein an order was passed on 19 -8 -2002 whereby petitioner was directed to approach the designated authority for appropriate relief and the petitioner approached the appropriate authority and filed a representation for appropriate relief and the designated authority, after herein all the parties concerned, came to a finding that I.O., who is SDPO, Barwadih, searched the godown under Sec. 165 Cr. P.C. and his action was in accordance with law and, therefore, no illegality was found in seating the godown in question and, therefore, the representation was rejected. As against the order dated 7 -9 -2002, passed by the designated authority, the petitioner has preferred this criminal writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the designated authority is wholly misconceived as search has not been made under Sec. 165 Cr. P.C. but search has actually been made under Sec. 7 of the POTA. For making search and seizure under Sec. 7 of the POTA, there is a provision that before making search the I.O. has to obtain permission of the DGP, Jharkhand and he has to furnish information of search and seizure within 48 hours to the designated authority but no such procedure has been followed and as a result of such search and seizure the petitioner has been put to a heavy loss as Kendu leaves are stored in the godown, which is perishable articles and as a result of sealing of the godown for quite a long time, the petitioner has sustained a heavy loss. Provision of Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is quoted hereinbelow: