Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 474 (JHR)

Maheswari Oil Mills v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-04-17

D.P.SINGH

body2008
ORDER D.P. Singh, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the proceedings of arbitrary and illegal seizure dated 29.6.2005 of food grains, edible oil and other commodities without valid grounds in connection with Deoghar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005, dated 27.5.2005. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that respondent No. 2; the Executive Magistrate on 25.5.2005 visited the premises of M/s. Radhaghani Oil Mills as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and conducted a search. Further stated during search some sample of mustered oil were collected to ascertain whether the oil contained polluting chemicals or not. During the search, some inventory was prepared of items available in the premises. The informant further suspected that the items available in the shop were not procured properly. He further mentioned that the persons employed there did not get proper remuneration and there were violations of Factories Act, Minimum Wages Act, Sales Tax Act etc. 3. This matter was reported to Officer-in-charge, Deoghar Police Station on the basis of which Deoghar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005 dated 27.5.2005 has been registered for various sections of IPC as well as other Acts. However, the seizure was made on 29.6.2005 showing five items vide annexure-4 found less in quantity as mentioned in the FIR and those available items were thereafter handed over on personal bond for the purpose of preserving it. The said seizure as well as the present jimmanama mentioned above have been challenged in this writ. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the whole procedure adopted by respondent No. 2 was illegal arbitrary and against the provisions of law. It is submitted that the informant has not seized any item on 25.5.2005 though in the FIR the stock position of shop has been mentioned. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has no authority to conduct the search and further to seize those items which were available in the shop for regular commercial purposes under the provisions of law. 5. Sri L.K. Bajla the learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the whole proceeding was vitiated as the search was conducted just to harass and malign the petitioner for which grounds has been mentioned in the petition. 6. The respondent-State and respondent No. 2 having appeared contested the petition. 5. Sri L.K. Bajla the learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the whole proceeding was vitiated as the search was conducted just to harass and malign the petitioner for which grounds has been mentioned in the petition. 6. The respondent-State and respondent No. 2 having appeared contested the petition. According to them the FIR was lodged on valid grounds and the seizure was made in accordance with law. 7. Having gone through the materials on records, it is apparent that the Deoghar P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005 dated 27.5.2005 was lodged for the offences under IPC as well as Food Adulteration Acts. The FIR included a list of 19 items like maida, choker, cattle feed, chwa, besan, rice, dal mustered oil etc. vide annexure-1. However, these items are not shown to have been seized on the same day. 8. Later on a jimmanama was prepared vide annexure 4 showing some items less at serial Nos. 1,2, 3, 6 and 8. It further appears that the police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner only under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Perused the case diary available on the record, it is apparent that other allegations like adulteration in mustered oil, violations of factories rules as well as shops and establishment rules etc. have not been found correct. The charge-sheet under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted as per direction of the Supervising Authority i. e. Dy. S.P. and S.P., Deoghar. However, the said supervision note No. 1572 Sadar dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 are not available in the case dairy. 10. It is also apparent from the counter-affidavit filed on 20.7.2006 that the different departments. Labour as well as Sales Tax department were informed by the Deputy Commissioner to take suitable action as per FIR. However, in the charge-sheet no mention has been made what happened to those enquiry by the concerned departments. The final submission of charge-sheet do not show that those allegations have been substantiated during investigation. However, the charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner firm got those commonly available items as stolen property. 11. The learned APP and the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that in view of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the seizure as well as jimmanama has been made in accordance with law. 12. 11. The learned APP and the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that in view of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the seizure as well as jimmanama has been made in accordance with law. 12. After going through the materials on record, I find that the submission of the counsel on behalf of the respondents is not maintainable. Any search and seizure requires authority of law. The search was made on 25.5.2005 though the list of items found in the shop were prepared but no formal seizure has been made. After more than one month on 29.6.2005 a jimmanama was prepared showing five items less from the list prepared on 25.5.2005. It is not clear that items have been given on jimmanama. The absence of original seizure list and faulty jimmanama prepared after 34 days itself shows that the authority concerned were hesitant in the formal seizure of the goods found in the shop of the petitioner. The submission of the charge sheet under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code without having any report of theft is also based merely on the basis of suspicion which cannot be sustained as there is no material in the case diary to substantiate the allegations. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances stated above, the petition is found having merit in it. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The whole proceeding of seizure and jimmanama along with the charge-sheet is hereby quashed. 14. In this manner this writ petition stands disposed of.