BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE prize chits and money circulation schemes (banning) Act, 1978, is an act brought into force for banning the promotion or conduct of prize chits and money circulation schemes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto with effect from 12-12-1978. It is an act enacted by the parliament. Under section 3 of the said Act, no person shall promote or conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme or enroll as a member to any such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such chit or scheme. Section 4 of the act contemplates imposition of penalty for contravening the Provisions of Section 3 and Section 5 deals with penalty for other offences in connection with prize chits or money circulation schemes. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is thatthe petitioner commenced a scheme called marulhi golden benefit scheme which was closed in the year 1979. It appears that at the instance of the members, the petitioner commenced another scheme in the month of April 1979 called maruthi diamond scheme and the duration of the scheme was 60 months coming to an end in the month of April 1984. It is stated that under the scheme, the petitioner has advanced a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs to 1500 members and Rs. 4,30,0 00/- to another 1000 members, altogether a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs is outstanding according to the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT is stated that the petitioner wasnot aware of the framing of the Karnataka prize chits and money circulation scheme (banning) rules, 1980 which were published in the karnataka, gazette dated 11-12-1980. On 25-3-1983, the sub-inspector of police, shimoga, raided the premises of the petitioner's firm on the ground that the scheme is banned under Section 3 of the act. The petitioner made a representation to the state government seeking permission to complete the scheme by april, 1984. Thereafter, what happened is not known. The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of books of account by the sub-inspector of police. The petitioner made a representation to the state government seeking permission to complete the scheme by april, 1984. Thereafter, what happened is not known. The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of books of account by the sub-inspector of police. ( 4 ) THE relief sought by thepetitioner is for a mandamus directing respondent-2 who is the district magistrate, shimoga, to consider the application of the petitioner for winding up plans of scheme made under Rule 4 of the Karnataka prize chits and money circulation scheme (banning) rules, 1980 in order to bring to an end the said scheme to the benefit of members and promoters of the scheme. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration iswhether the petitioner deserves the relief which he has sought for winding up in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the act. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner startedthe scheme after the prize chits and money circulation schemes (banning) Act, 1978, came into force. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the act and its implications. If the petitioner was not aware of the existence of either the act or the rules framed thereunder, the presumption of law is that he ought to be aware of the existence of the act and the rules and the consequences thereof for violation of any of the provisions contained therein. The well accepted principle of ignorance of law is ino excuse does not spare the petitioner. I do not see any lack of warrant in the action of the sub-inspector of police in raiding the premises of the petitioner and in seizing the books of account. Respondent-3 is fully justified in taking the action since such an action is an integral part of the functional role of the law enforcement authority. Seizing of the account books is on account of the illegal activity of the petitioner who has acted in contravention of Section 3 of the act and the follow up action by the sub-inspector of police to bring to book the petitioner under Section 4 of the act is neither improper nor illegal by any means. What is strange is that the petitioner is seeking the relief under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the act. What is strange is that the petitioner is seeking the relief under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the act. I do not think that the petitioner has either the legal or moral justification to invoke the aid of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the act because ab iriitio the petitioner has acted illegally throwing the act and the rules to the winds. After contravening the Provisions of the act and almost in total defiance of the statutory prohibition, it is not open to the petitioner to seek relief under the very act which the petitioner has flouted. The relief under sub-section (2) of Section 12 is available only to a person conducting a prize chit or money circulation scheme at the commencement of the act and not to a person who has commenced the scheme after the coming into force of the act. It is a strange case of the petitioner trying to not only break the law, but also to take advantage of the law at the same time. It is not possible for this court to place a premium on unlawful activity to which the petitioner is a party unless the petitioner is able to establish before the concerned authority under the act that he has not transgressed any provision of the act. ( 7 ) IT is also possible to take the viewthat the petitioner if necessary could establish the same when he is prosecuted for violation of sec. 3 of the act and he is sought to be penalised under Section 4. The law should take its own course and the petitioner has to take his chances. The writ jurisdiction is not intended to cater to situations wherein an act made by the parliament is sought to be circumvented. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .