Judgment Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.; 1. As all the three revision cases arise out of a seizure made: on 6.8.86 by the local DEB Officers in connection with that search GR. Case No. 66 of 86 under s. 7(1)(a) & (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act arising out of Assnsol P.S. case no. 5 dated August 7, 1988. 2. The prosecution case in short was that acting on seerets source of information of clandestine dealing in tyres and tubes the informant along with force abut 9.00 hours on 6.8.86 raided Mago Tyres on G T. Road. A, the owner Ajit Singh who was present failed to produce any stock register, sale register and licence for carrying on trade in respect of auto mobile tyres and tubes and no stock cum rate board was found maintained by the said firm the informant served a notice on the said Ajit Singh to produce the documents required for the said trade. On interrogation Ajit Singh disclosed that he had two godowns where tyres and tubes were also stored. The informant seized large number of tyres and tubes from the shop as well as two godowns of Ajit Singh Mago. As the accused has failed to carry Out the provisions of paragraph 3, 7, and 8 the west Bengal Automobile Tyres & Tube, Dealers Licensing Order 1973 he was liable for prosecution under s. 7(1)(a) & (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of these allegations the prosecution case has been started against the petitioners Ajit Singh Mago. But subsequently the prosecution did not submit any prosecution report in respect of Tyres & Tubes Control Order but filed a prosecution report under s. 4 of Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act and ultimately they filed a prosecution report for violating the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks & Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 Criminal Revision No. 1396/88 has been fired by the petitioner Ajit Singh Mago, for quashing the said prosecution. 3. Criminal Revision no. 471 of 39 was filed by the said Ajit Singh :M ago challenging an order dated March 10, 1988 passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal in Essential Commodities Confiscation Appeal no. 3. Criminal Revision no. 471 of 39 was filed by the said Ajit Singh :M ago challenging an order dated March 10, 1988 passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal in Essential Commodities Confiscation Appeal no. 19/87 affirming the order of confiscation and sale of tyres & tubes seized from the office Cum godown of Mago Tyres on 6.8.86 It appears that the DEB submitted a report before the Collector for seizure of the goods seized by them on 6.8.86 and the Collector passed an order of confiscation and sale. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. The appellate authority under section 6C by an order confirmed the confiscation order of the Collector in respect of articles seized from officer cum-godown of the petitioner but set aside the Older in respect of seizure of articles from the other two godowns of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has moved this application for getting aside the order of the appellate authority under section 6C and for releasing the goods seized from office-cum godown of the petitioner. 4. The other revision case viz, Criminal Revision no. 753/88 was preferred by the Slate of West Bangal against the order of release of the goods seized from the godowns of Ajit Singh Mago. 5. Since all these three applications relate to the same set of facts, all there three applications are taken up together for hearing. 6. In his application for quashing the prosecution being Criminal Revision no. 1396/88 the petitioner has alleged that West Bengal Automobile Tyres & Tubes Dealers Licensing Order was not in force when the alleged seizure was made. Accordingly, the seizure was not authorised by law. 6. In his application for quashing the prosecution being Criminal Revision no. 1396/88 the petitioner has alleged that West Bengal Automobile Tyres & Tubes Dealers Licensing Order was not in force when the alleged seizure was made. Accordingly, the seizure was not authorised by law. The further case of the petitioner is that the said order not having been implemented for a long time the seizure of the articles in exercise of that power under the said Order was mala fide and is colourable exercise of power, It has further been claimed that the Investigating authorities having themselves submitted a final report as regards violation of the provisions of the said order the whole seizure was bad and as such the prosecution cannot be maintained Prerequisites for seizure under the provisions of the Declaration of Stocks & Prices of Essential Commodities Order was that there must be the reason to believe that the said order has been violated and then and then only the power of entry search and seizure can be invoked. As it appears from the FIR that no reason to believe that the provisions of the Declaration of Such Order has been violated there cannot be any seizure under that Order. Moreover, it is apparent that no seizure was made under the provisions of the Declaration of the Stocks Order. It has further been stated that there was no mens rea on the part of the accused/petitioner and accordingly, the prosecution is not maintainable in law. On this ground the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings against him. 7. Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that paragraph 20 of the West Bengal Automobile Tyres & Tubes Dealers Licensing Order, 1973 has made provisions for entry, search, seizure etc. On this ground the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings against him. 7. Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that paragraph 20 of the West Bengal Automobile Tyres & Tubes Dealers Licensing Order, 1973 has made provisions for entry, search, seizure etc. It lays down that the Licensing Authority or any other person authorised in writing by the Licensing Authority or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector may, for securing compliance of the provisions of this order require a licence dealer or his employee to produce before him any book of accounts, register, vouchers, cash memo etc relating to the sale or purchase of tyres and tubes by such licensed dealer and seize any lyres and tubes in respect of which he has reason to believe that there has been a contravention of the provisions of this order and take all measures for their production in court and safe custody pending such production. Mr. Roy submits that the tyres and tubes being in abundant supply there was no use in invoking the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The order was issued for securing equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of lyres and tubes in west Bengal. According to Mr. Roy, the tyres and tubes are being sold on premium to the consumers. Accordingly the State did not implement the said order for a long time. Referring to annexures in his petition for quashing Mr. Roy submitted that it will appear from annexure 'C’ that the District Magistrate intimated to the Superintendent of Police (DEB) Burdwan on 18.8.86 that the Automobile Tyres and Tubes Order has been withdrawn long back There is an endorsement in the said letter dated 29.8.86 by the Dy. Secretary, Transport Department, Government of west Bengal stating that the said statement is confirmed. Annexure "D" is a letter written on behalf of the Mago Tyres to the Dy. Secretary, Government of West Bengal. In the said letter there is an endorsement by the Dy. Secretary, Transport Department that the said order is no longer in force it was repealed long ago. Ext. "E" a letter written by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. Transport Department to the President, Calcutta Tyre Dealers Association stated that the said order is no longer in force. It was rescinded long ago. Mr. Secretary, Transport Department that the said order is no longer in force it was repealed long ago. Ext. "E" a letter written by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. Transport Department to the President, Calcutta Tyre Dealers Association stated that the said order is no longer in force. It was rescinded long ago. Mr. Roy has also referred to annexure "G" to his petition it will appear therefrom that the Calcutta Tyre Dealers Association made a representation to the Chief Minister and various other authorities and ultimately wrote a letter addressed to Sri Radhika Ranjan Banerjee, Minister-in-Charge, Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal Stating that they met him on 6th August, 1986 in connection with some harassment by the Enforcement Branch• causing closer of all tyres of in or around Calcutta. At the same meeting Secretary, Special Secretary, DCG of the Department and also Special IG Enforcement were also present. It was noted that at the meeting it was agreed that it was not practicable to maintain a stock board of tyres at dealers place of business because of large varieties of tyres and large number of manufacture. It was agreed that no stock board would be necessary but stock register must be maintained. Enforcement authorities was instructed to arrange for release of tyres which were confiscated by the Collector. The said agreement was also circulated to all the members of the Tyres Association. On these facts Mr. Roy submits that it will appear that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner for not keeping the stock register or displaying the stock board, Accordingly, Mr, Roy submits for the lack of mens rea there cannot be any prosecution for violation of any order made under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It will appear from s. 10C of the Essential Commodities Act that in any prosecution for any offence under the Act which requires a culpable mental state all the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. M. Roy submitted that it will appear from the documents referred to above that the petitioner had no culpable mental state in committing the lapses as alleged by the prosecution Relying on decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 43 (Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Roy submitted that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. A statute may exclude element of mens rea expressly or by necessary implication. The nature of the men rea that would be implied in a statue creating an offence depends on the object of the act and the provision thereon. It further held that an offence under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act necessarily involves a guilty mind as an ingredient of the offence. Mr. Roy accordingly submits that since there is no mens rea a is apparent in the face of the record the prosecution case should be quashed. I have already referred to the provisions or s. 10C of the Act. The petitioner in terms of the said provision has been given a scope to show that any criminal mental state was lacking in his part. It appears from the record that the trial has started and a few witnesses have been examined. The petitioner will be at liberty to establish that he had no mens rea in relation to the offence alleged. We do not consider Ii necessary to quash the proceedings in view of the law on the point as indicated above. 8. Mr. Roy then submitted that the alleged seizure which is the basis of the prosecution case is an illegal seizure. Referring to the provisions of paragraph 20(c), of the Tyres and Tubes Orders Mr. Roy submitted that there was no ground for a reasonable belief in the mind of the searching Authority that the provisions of the said Order has been violated As indicated above Mr. Roy submitted that after making the search police enquired if the said order was still in force that will indicate that they had no idea at the time of the search whether the order was in force. Various communications referred to above clearly indicated that the order was either revoked or was not being implemented for a long time. This position will indicate that the whole operation of search and seizure was mala fide. There cannot be any prosecution on the basis of such an illegal seizure. Various communications referred to above clearly indicated that the order was either revoked or was not being implemented for a long time. This position will indicate that the whole operation of search and seizure was mala fide. There cannot be any prosecution on the basis of such an illegal seizure. It will appear from the FIR that the search and seizure was made on the basis of the provisions of the Tyres and Tubes Control Order. No prosecution was ultimately lodged for violation of any of the provisions of that Order. Accordingly, it will appear that there was no reason to believe that the provisions of the Tyres and Tube; Control Order were being violated by the petitioner. But the prosecution case at the moment is under the provisions of the Declaration of the Stocks Order. It will appear from the FIR that there was no stock board maintained as required under the Declaration of the Stocks Order but it also appears that no seizure was made in exercise or the powers conferred by the Declaration of the Stocks Order. It will appear from a decision reported in 78 CWN 121 (Kesoram Industries vs. S.K. Rattan & Ors.) that if the search being illegal the property has to be returned to the person from whom seized. If the search is illegal the articles seized in course of the seizure has to be returned to the person from whom seized because of the fact that search being illegal, he has a right to resist Such a search and as corollary to this the articles even if seized has to be returned to the person from whom it was seized. But it may be noted in Radha Krishan v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 822 the Supreme Court observed that so far as the alleged illegality of the search is concerned it is sufficient to say that even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the article is not vitiated. It, therefore, follow that the seizure can be proved by the prosecution in till instant Case even though the search may be illegal. These decisions were arrived at considering he provisions of s. 165 and s. 102 and 103 and the then Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. It, therefore, follow that the seizure can be proved by the prosecution in till instant Case even though the search may be illegal. These decisions were arrived at considering he provisions of s. 165 and s. 102 and 103 and the then Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Roy submitted that order the provisions of the order the search is not for finding out a particular object bur to see if the provisions or the respective order has been violated. In such a case the illegality of both search and seizure, must depend on the reasonable believe on the part of the Searching Officer that the provisions of the order was being violated Accordingly he submits that evidence with regard to the search and seizure under paragraph 20 (d) & (e) of the Tyres and Tubes Control Order cannot be of any assistance in a prosecution for violation of the provisions, of lie Declaration of Stocks" Order. 9. Mr. Chatterjee on the other hand contended that ignorance of law is no excuse since law was in force at the relevant time there is no ground for quashing the proceedings. He also contended that even if the accused could establish that he did not violate the law deliberately he can get an order of acquittal or of lesser sentence but he cannot any that the prosecution is not at all maintainable in law. He has referred to a decision reported in AIR 1982 SC 58 (State of Bihar v. Gulab Chand Prasad), it was a case under the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the violation of the order which was alleged was not at all in force at the relevant time. The Supreme Court held that the whole purpose of the approach of the High Court gets knocked out once the order is said to be existing and in force. It further held that it would be unwise to ignore the existence of the subsisting order and to dispose of a proceeding as if no such order was there Mr. The Supreme Court held that the whole purpose of the approach of the High Court gets knocked out once the order is said to be existing and in force. It further held that it would be unwise to ignore the existence of the subsisting order and to dispose of a proceeding as if no such order was there Mr. Chatterjee contended that the circumstances as disclosed in this reported decision to indicate that even though the order in question involve in that case apparently was not in existence at the time when the matter was being heard by the High Court but when it was shown to the supreme Court that the order is in existence the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court. The decision according to Mr. Chatterjee Clearly indicate that confession with regard to the existence of the order allegedly violated did not impress the Supreme Court and it held that since the order was in force the trial will go on. With regard to mens rea Mr. Chatterjee: contended that since law has imposed an obligation under s. JOC of the Essential Commodities Act providing for a presumption that the culpable mental state on the part of the accused was in existence but the accused can prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged an offence in that prosecution. Explanation to the said section also lays down that culpable mental state include intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief any or reason to believe of a fact. Accordingly, Mr. Chatterjee concludes that there is no ground for quashing the proceeding. It may also be mentioned that the annexure to the petition relied on by the petitioner relating to the existence of the Tyre, and Tubes Control Order has to be proved in evidence and the Circumstances relating to such communication by the State authorities has to be disclosed at the time of trial. Only when such materials are brought on record it can be decided whether the accused had any means rea in the alleged violation of the said order, In this view, we are unable to accept the contention, raised by Mr. Roy for quashing the proceeding,. Accordingly, Criminal revision No. 1396/83 fails and stands dismissed. The trial that has commenced be concluded as early as possible. 10. In criminal revision nos. Roy for quashing the proceeding,. Accordingly, Criminal revision No. 1396/83 fails and stands dismissed. The trial that has commenced be concluded as early as possible. 10. In criminal revision nos. 471/88 & 753/88 the property of the order passed by the Secretary, Food & Supplies Department, Govt. of West Bengal under s, 6C of the Essential Commodities Act is under challenge. The petitioner in criminal revision no. 471 of 88 challenges the order in question on the ground that the appellate authority failed to take into account that the search resulting in the seizure of goods both from the office-cum-godown as well as other two godowns were not in accordance with law. Mr. Roy Submitted that since the alleged seizure was not in accordance with law, the goods seized must be returned to the person from whom it was seized. We have already indicated that the requirement of paragraph 20(d) & (e) is that the Searching Officer may seize an tyre and tube in respect of which he has reason to believe that there has been a contravention of the provisions of this order. As it appears from the facts disclosed that ultimately the authorities did not submit any charge-sheet with regard to violation of any provisions of Tyre & Tubes Orders the prosecution cannot say that the articles were seized on the belief that there has been a contravention or the provisions of this order. The ultimate Case for which the prosecution was lodged was for violation of west Bengal Declarations of Stocks Order. Paragraph 5 of the said order also provided that the Searching Office with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this order enter, inspect and search any premises and seize any stock of essential commodity in respect of which he has reason to believe that any provisions of this order has been or is being or is about to be Contravened. Since from the: prosecution report as well as from the FIR it was not disclosed that with the view and belief as contemplated by paragraph 5 the search and seizure was made it cannot he contended that such seizure was a seizure in accordance with law as provided by paragraph 5 of the said order. Referring to AIR 1976 Delhi 225 (Hindustan Aluminium Corporation v The Collector of Aluminium & ors., Mr. Referring to AIR 1976 Delhi 225 (Hindustan Aluminium Corporation v The Collector of Aluminium & ors., Mr. Roy sub-mitted that the reason to believe that any contravention of the control order had taken place 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 a citizen is possible only after strictly complying with the preconditions for the exercise of such power it was also contended that a reason to believe cannot be said to exist unless there is application of mind as to whether a particular state of affair exists or does not exist at a particular time. Mr. Roy referred to another decision reported in AIR 1968 SC 59 Commissioner of Commercial. Taxes v. Ram Kishan Sree Kishan Jhaver to submit that any thing recovered on a defective search must be returned. In a Single Bench decision of this court reported in 78 CWN 121 (Kesoram Industries S.K. Rattan the court held that if the seizure is not in accordance with law any persons entitled to the goods seized can resist such seizure. It accordingly follows that if such seizure is even effected he will be entitled to the return of goods. Mr. Chaterjee on the other hand contended that even if the search is illegal the seizure of the article is not vitiated. Even if the provision of ss. 103 and 166 of the Cr.PC are contravened the search could be reisted by the persons whose premises are sought to be searched but that by itself does not render the seizure under s. 103 and 165 of the Cr.PC. It is a seizure in terms of the provisions of the orders issed under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It may be that in effecting such search provisions of 103 and 165 of the Cr.PC has also to be complied with. But the pre-conditions of both the search and seizure are identical in the provisions of this order. Therefore this order will render both the search and the seizure illegal. That being the position the articles seized in this illegal search has to be returned to the person from whom these articles were seized. 11. In criminal revision no.753 of 88 filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the appellate order under s. 6C of the Essential Commodities Act Mr. That being the position the articles seized in this illegal search has to be returned to the person from whom these articles were seized. 11. In criminal revision no.753 of 88 filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the appellate order under s. 6C of the Essential Commodities Act Mr. Chatterjee Contended that in west Bengal Declaration of Stocks & Prices of Essential Commodities Order place of business means a place where the books of accounts of a dealer's business are kept and where order or offers involving purchase or sale of any essential commodity are received and includes place or places where the dealer stress any essential commodity. Relying on this decisions Mr. Chatterjee submits that the appellate authority was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the seizure made from the godowns are not from the place of business of the opposite party. It will appear on perusal of the impugned order that the appellate authority thought that since such seizure was mace from the grownds beyond the hours of business there was no obligation on the accused to display stock and price lists in the godown at the relevant hour and only in this view he directed return of those goods seized from the godowns. On this aspect of the matter Mr. Chaterjee's contention was that pragraph 3 of the said order imposes an obligation on every wholesaler or every retailer to display conspicuously at the place as near to the entrance of his place of business as possible a list in form 'B' of each essential commodity held by him on each day. Mr. Chatterjee contends on the basis of this provision that price lists and the board must display the essential commodity held by a dealer on each day. According to him the day means a day comprised of a full twenty four hours. But if we look at the object of the said order it will appear that the order was promulgated as, it was necessary and expedient for maintaining and increasing supplies of essential commodities and for securing equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The object of displaying the stock and price board was to achieve that end. That being the position the display of stock cum price lists must be maintained at the time when the business is transacted. The object of displaying the stock and price board was to achieve that end. That being the position the display of stock cum price lists must be maintained at the time when the business is transacted. At a lime when no business is being transacted there is no question of displaying of stock and price lists. Accordingly, the contention of Mr. Chatterjee in this regard is not acceptable to us. 12. In view of what has been stated above, criminal revision no. 471 of 88 succeeds and the impugned order so far as it relates to the goods seized from the office-cum-godown of petitioner Ajit Singh Mago is set aside. The goods seized from the that place be returned to the petitioner Ajit Singh Mago. The criminal revision No 753 of 88 filed by the State of West Bengal stands dispraised. Pabitra Kumar Banerj, J. Crl. Rem. No. 1396188 dismissed. Crl. Revn. No. 471/88 Crt. Revn No. 753/88 dismissed.