Judgment : This is a revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Salem dismissing C.A. No. 552 of 1976 and confirming the order of confiscation passed by the Collector of Salem in S. R. No. 394/75-J3 dated 28th March, 1976. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Food Cell, C.I.D., Salem, inspected the business premises of Thiru PerumalPillai, a T.N.P.R.D. wholesale dealer at Namagiripet on l0th October, 1975,in the presence of the father of the licensee and found an excess stock of 42 bags of paddy not covered by any purchase bills and not accounted for in the stock register. The excess stock was seized by the Sub-Inspector and proceedings were initiated under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. At the enquiry held by the Collector, it was contended by the revision petitioners that the 42 bags of excess stock were brought by three agriculturist just a few hours before the seizure, that since the first revision petitioner was away at Narasingapuram and his father and brother were at their residence, the stock could not be accounted for and that the stock would have been brought into account later. The first revision petitioner also filed receipts to prove that he was regularly surrendering levy paddy to the authorities. He also filed certificates from the Village Officers to prove that the three agriculturists referred to above had harvested paddy in their respective lands. 4. The Collector was not satisfied with the genuineness of the claim of the three agriculturists". He held that "even assuming that the paddy bags seized were sold by these three agriculturists they should have been brought into account by the licensee through issue of purchase bill and entries in the stock register. Except the blank statement of the accused and his father, there is no evidence oral or written available to substantiate the claim of the accused. On the other hand the Police have observed the proper procedure and the stocks have been seized in the presence of two independent witnesses and the father of the accused. The Counsel for the accused presumably on second thoughts, produced certain affidavits after about a week. Two of these affidavits are from the neighbours of the accused who are supposed to have been accidentally present at the time of the seizure. A perusal of their affidavit prove that they are concocted and unreliable. The Counsel for the accused presumably on second thoughts, produced certain affidavits after about a week. Two of these affidavits are from the neighbours of the accused who are supposed to have been accidentally present at the time of the seizure. A perusal of their affidavit prove that they are concocted and unreliable. The third affidavit is from the brother of the accused himself, who naturally supports the version of the accused. The fourth affidavit is from a cooly who is supposed to have been present at the time of the seizure. This is also an after thought as the Police or the other witnesses have not be stated anything about his presence in the search list". 5. Therefore, the Collector came to the conclusion that the first revision petitioner was keeping 42 bags of paddy in bis shop without bringing them into account and has thereby violated the conditions of this licence and directed the confiscation of the Paddy. This order of the Collector was confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge of Salem. The observation of the Collector that except the blank statement of the accused and his father, there is no evidence, oral or written available to substantiate the claim of the first revision petitioner herein proceeds on the assumption that an opportunity was given to him to adduce evidence and he failed to avail himself of the same. A summary procedure has been resorted to by the Collector and no witness has been examined either on the side of the Police or on the side of the revision petitioner. Therefore this reason given by the Collector for disbelieving the case of the first revision petitioner is untenable. No other valid reason has been given by the Collector to disbelieve the case of the first revision petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in K.L. Subbiyya v. State of Karnataka1 wherein the provisions of section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1966 (Mysore Act XXI of 1966) have been considered. 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in K.L. Subbiyya v. State of Karnataka1 wherein the provisions of section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1966 (Mysore Act XXI of 1966) have been considered. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in that case that: “The inspector who searched the car of the appellant had not made any record of any ground on the basis of which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act, was being committed before proceeding to search the car and thus the provisions of section 54 were not at all complied with. This, therefore, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiates the conviction. We feel that both sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecutions or harassment. The point was taken before the High Court which appears to have brushed aside this legal lacuna without making any real attempt to analyse the effect of the provisions of sections 53 and 54. The High Court observed that these two sections were wholly irrelevant. With due respect we are unable to approve of such a cryptic approach to a legal question which is off far-reaching consequence. It was, however, suggested that the word ‘place’ would not include the car, but the definition of the word ‘place’ under the Act clearly includes vehicle which would include a car. Thus the ground on which the argument of the petitioner has been rejected by the High Court cannot be sustained by us. We are satisfied that there has been a direct non-compliance of the provisions of section 54 which renders the search completely without jurisdiction." In P. Ramachandra v. Government of India2on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed that: “Clause 11(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order does not admit of any doubt that even at the time of entering or searching the premises, there must be reasonable belief that any contravention has been or is likely to be committed. That ‘reason to believe’ is a condition precedent to vest any jurisdiction in the officers either to enter the premises or to make any search. That ‘reason to believe’ is a condition precedent to vest any jurisdiction in the officers either to enter the premises or to make any search. In the absence of such reasonable belief, the entry and the consequent search has been vitiated. The mere fact that some subsequently they discovered discrepancy in the stock on hand and the position of stock as entered on the notice board, cannot make good the reasonable belief which an officer is bound to have initially before he makes an entry. The subsequent discovery of any material cannot be equated to the initial reasonable belief.” Subsequently it has been held that: “a fishing or roving enquiry is not permissible to cull out material for formulating a reason to believe subsequently. In other words, the reasonable belief must exist before the officer makes a seizure of the grounds under the above two cases. But clause 11(6) of the A. P. Foodgrains Licensing Order also enjoins upon the requirement of reasonable belief before even an entry, is made into the premises. Thus, under this Order, unless such a reasonable belief exists as to the likelihood of any contravention being committed or has been committed there is no power in the officers to make such an entry.” 7. The ratio of these two cases is applicable to the facts of the instantcase. There is nothing on record to prove that before entering the business premises of the first revision petitioner the Sub-Inspector of Police, Food Cell, C.I.D. had reason to believe that any contravention of the provision of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed. Therefore the entire search is illegal and consequently the proceedings culminating into an order of confiscation is also invalid. Hence the order of confiscation is set aside and the revision is allowed. Revision allowed.