Judgment This revision is directed against the order of The Appellate Authority (Sessions Judge), Madurai, confirming the order of the Additional Collector, Madurai, confiscating 40 quintals of paddy. 2. On 9th October, 1978, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, C. I. D., Madurai, inspected Sri Arumugha Vilas Rice Mill, Madurai, of which the first revision petitioner is the proprietor. It was found during inspection that there was unaccounted raw paddy of about 180 bags weighing 57 kgs, each. They were seized and a special report was submitted to the Collector recommending confiscation. The Additional Collector issued a show cause notice under section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act to the first revision petitioner and also to the second revision petitioner, who is the Accountant, who are alleged to have violated the provisions of clauses 14(2) and 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The revision petitioners contended that 180 bags of raw paddy were purchased at Chidambaram and were brought on the moraing on 9th October, 1970 and entries were not made in the books as it was a Sunday. This defence did not find favour with the Additional Collector, who fund that there has been a violation of clauses 14(2) and 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974 and passed an order confiscating forty quintals of paddy out of the seized stock. In appeal the order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petitioners are aggrieved and have filed this revision. 3. The inspection of the premises is not disputed, nor the seizure of the paddy bags, It is pointed out by the Appellate Authority that verification of entries in the register shows that transactions pertaining to all the days in the month inclusive of Sundays have been duly recorded. It is also seen that on 8th October, 1978 on which day 180 bags of paddy were said to have been received from Chidambaram, there have been other transactions of sale of paddy, which have been duly entered in the books, but not this transaction. Therefore, the Explanation that they failed to make entries as it was a Sunday, is not acceptable Further, the inspection was only on 9th October, 1978. There was ample time to make the entry. Therefore, the Explanation that they failed to make entries as it was a Sunday, is not acceptable Further, the inspection was only on 9th October, 1978. There was ample time to make the entry. Rightly the explanation of the revision petitioners was not accepted by both the authorities and sitting in revision. I do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the authorities below that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Order mentioned earlier. 4. But, it is contended that the inspector of Police his not stated in his report that “he had reason to believe that an offence had been or was being committed or was likely to be committed” and therefore, the seizure was illegal and the confiscation’ has to be set aside. In support, the counsel for appellant relied on M. Sivaraman, In re1 a ruling of this Court. That was a case where a hulling agent of the Civil Supplies Corporation hulled 12 bags of rice without getting the previous permission of the Corporation for hulling his private stock in the mill in accordance with Condition 14 of his licence. He transported 12 bags of rice to another wholesale dealer for the purpose of sale, in contravention of the license granted to him. The Inspector of Police stopped the double bullock-cart and cheeked the bags which were sought to be transported by the cart. He found 12 bags of rice in the cart and the cartman produced a bill, but there was no seal of the checkpost on the hill and therefore, the 12 bags of rice were seized, and the premises of the petitioner’s mill was also searched by the Inspector. Suryamurthi, J., observed that the Inspector has not stated in his report that he I ad “reason to believe” that the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or rules framed thereunder had been contravened or sought to be contravened at the time he stopped the cart and searched the same, that he had merely stated that he stopped the cart which had passed through the checkpost and thereafter he entertained merely a suspicion that an offence’ has been committed or might be committed and has not stated in his report that he had “reason to believe” that an offence has been committed or was likely to be committed and therefore, the seizure was illegal. In the end he set aside the confiscation. The ruling referred to does not show as to why the Inspector should say in his report that he has “reason to believe”, nor does the learned Counsel give any reason as to why such words should be found in the report of the searching officer. But, it would have been better had there been such a report in view of classes 25 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. Clause 25 (1) (e) states that if any compete officer has reason to believe that any contravention of the order has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed such officer may seize the stock of paddy or rice along with the packages, coverings or receptacles in which such paddy or rice is found or the animals, vehicles, vessels, boats or other conveyances used in carrying such paddy or rice and thereafter send to the Collector of the district concerned a report in writing as required under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 5. Section 3(2)(j)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act runs thus: "Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide *** *** *** (j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including, in particular, the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other conveyances and animals, and the seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination,- (i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being or is about to be, committed and any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found; (Italics supplied) It should be noted that the Tamil Nadu (Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, was made in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 of the Essential (Commodities Act, 1955. In K.L. Subbhayya v. State of Karnataka1, the Supreme Court bad to deal with sections 53 and 54 of the Mysore Excise Act. In that case, the accused was convicted under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. In K.L. Subbhayya v. State of Karnataka1, the Supreme Court bad to deal with sections 53 and 54 of the Mysore Excise Act. In that case, the accused was convicted under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100 for being in possession of 48 boules of liquor which were recovered from the car which was driven by the accused. It was contended for the accused in that case that the Inspector of Excise who searched the car along with the panches had no jurisdiction to do so, because he did so without complying with the provisions of section 54 of the Mysore Excise Act. Their Lordships have extracted sections 53 and 54. Both section 53 and section 54 speak of the "reasonable belief" than an offence under the Act is being committed before a search is made. In that case it was held that the Inspector who searched the car of the accused bad not recorded the grounds 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 thus the provisions of section 54 were not at all complied with They finally held that non-compliance of the provisions of section 54 renders the search completely without jurisdiction.'' 6. P. Ramachandra v. Government of India2 was a case where the Vigilance Cell Inspectors and other Revenue Officials entered the residence-cum-business premises of the petitioner in that case who was a licenced foodgrains dealer in Chittoor, had searched the premises and seized 2,000 bags of foodgrains. According to the officials, the dealer had contravened clause 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1964. The contention in that case was that it is only a reasonable belief that any contravention of the provisions of the Andhra. Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order or of any conditions of the licence issued thereunder has been or is being or is about to be committed, that would give jurisdiction or empower the licencing authority or any officers specified in clause (11) of the Licensing Order, to enter and search the premises and only on such belief he could seize the goods. The learned Judges of the Division Bench pointed out that clause (11)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order enjoins upon the requirement of reasonable belief before even an entry is made into the premises and that under the Order unless such a reasonable belief exists as to the livelihood of any contravention being committed or has been committed, there is no power to the officers to make such an entry. They also pointed out that section 11(b) lays down that there must be reasonable belief and that it is that reasonable belief that vests jurisdiction in the officer to enter the premises. But, the earned Judges on that ground alone quashed the proceedings in respect of the entry, seatch and seizure. 7. In Hindustan Aluminivm v. Controller, Aluminium1 a firm withheld from sale 1,525 tons of aluminium products in contravention of the Aluminium Control Order, 1970 during the period ending 1st July, 1975 and the firm before 16th July, 1975 despatched 1,525 tons and on 16th July, 1975 the authorities seized the entire stock of 2,032 tons of aluminium product from the premises of the firm. The learned Judges of the Delhi High Court took the view that- “The reason to believe that any contravention of the Control Order had taken place (to which sheet alone the discussion in this judgment has to be is confined in the circumstances explained above is a) pre-condition to the seizure of goods. It is well established that any exercise of statutory power interfering with the property rights of citizens is possible only after strictly complying with the preconditions for the exercise of such a power. The reason to believe in this case, therefore, must relate to the period of time when the impugned seizure was made, namely, on 16th July, 1976; in other words, even any subsequent acquisition of belief in this regard would be of no avail.” This ruling would show that a reasonable belief that a contravention has been committed was a pre-condition for the seizure. But, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that there is no record in this case to show that any such reasonable belief existed enabling the officer to make the search and seizure. But, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that there is no record in this case to show that any such reasonable belief existed enabling the officer to make the search and seizure. But in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated as follows; “In this case, however, it was observed that the recording of reasons under section 165 did not confer on the officer jurisdiction to make search though it is a necessary condition for doing so. Jurisdiction or power to make a search was conferred by the statute and not derived from the recording of reasons. These observations are sufficient to dispose of the first point which has been pressed about the omission to record the reasons thefore the search or even thereafter in a proper way.” 8. In State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Kandaswamy Pillai3. a Division Bench of this Court had to deal with the legality of the seizure without observing the provisions of clause 14 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing, Regulation and Disposal of Stocks) Control Order, 1968, and of sections 102 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Clause 14 of the Order made the provisions of sections 102 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to search applicable as for as possible to search and seizure under the Order. The Division Bench observed that if the search and seizure is not in accordance with law, it may be open to the person accused to complain that the seizure was never made, or that the evidence as to seizure cannot be accepted, but once it is made out that the weapon or the stolen property was seized from the accused, the mere fact that the search and seizure were not in accordance with law would not vitiate the seizure. 9. 9. In Radha Krishnan v. State of Uttar Pradesh4, the Supreme Court stated thus: “So far as the alleged illegality of a search is concerned it is sufficient to say that even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is not vitiated It may be that where the provisions of sections 103 and 165, Criminal Procedure Code, are contravened the search sought to be searched It may also be that because of the illegality of the search the Court may be inclined to examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond those two consequences no further consequence ensues”. The rulings in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat2 and Radha Krishnan v. State of Uttar Pradesh4, would indicate that the validity of a search would not be affected merely because there has been an omission to record the reasons. In this case, according to the counsel for the petitioner, there has been a contravention of clause 25 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade; Order, 1974. It should be noted that clause 25 does not contemplate that the competent officer should record in his report that he had reason to believe that a contravention of the Order has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed. It is enough if the competent officer had reason to believe so. It may be that the competent officer on the basis of the information which he might have received, effects the seizure and it may be that such information could not be disclosed to the affected party. In my view, unless some prejudice is caused to the accused, failure to state in his report that the competent officer had reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed, would not vitiate either the seizure of the proceedings. No doubt, the report of the police officer does not mention that he had reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been committed, or is being committed or is about to be committed. But, that by itself will not affect the validity of the seizure. I am therefore, of the view that the order of confiscation is correct. The revision fails and is dismissed.