JUDGMENT :- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State. 2. On 3rd August, 1999 Rule was issued and the matter was expedited. There was no interim relief. 3. The petitioner/original accused feels aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.1994 of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur in STCC No.117 /1988, who recorded conviction against the petitioner/accused. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the petitioner/ accused herein moved the learned Addi1ional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal No.39/1994. The learned Additional Sessions Judge altered the sentence from two months, recorded by JMFC, to till rising of the Court. However, the fine amount was not changed. The learned Sessions Judge also directed confiscation of sale proceeds of the unsealed groundnuts amounting to Rs.17, 301 =30 ps., which were handed over the petitioner/accused on Supratnama bond. 4. The factual matrix in the matter is, on 5.11.1987, at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner/accused herein was found in the area of Navapur, a notified tribal area, in possession of 24 quintals and 82 kg. of groundnuts (an agricultural produce), which was in violation of Section 5, punishable under Section 12(2) of the Maharashtra Tribal Economic Condition (Improvement) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act). 5. Though the learned Counsel castigated to the activities of search and seizure, since PW-3, a panch, did not support the prosecution, the main question in the matter revolves to the authority vested in PW -1 to carry search and seizure. Section 11 of the said act indicate - "Any police officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or any other person authorized by the State Government may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this Act, or the Rules or the Orders made thereunder to satisfying himself that the said provisions have been complied with, stop and search any person, animal, vehicle, vessel or receptacle used or intended to be used for the transport of any agricultural produce". 6. The pre-requisite of Section 11 of the said Act is. the authorization bestowed in PW-l Nandaji. Both the Courts, based on Exhibits-21, 22 and 23, held that Nandaji was such authorized person. However, Exhibit-21 is the sanction order issued by the competent authority. Exhibit-23 is the letter, under which, the documents were annexed for the approval of the learned Collector. The pre-requisite of Section 11 of the said Act is. the authorization bestowed in PW-l Nandaji. Both the Courts, based on Exhibits-21, 22 and 23, held that Nandaji was such authorized person. However, Exhibit-21 is the sanction order issued by the competent authority. Exhibit-23 is the letter, under which, the documents were annexed for the approval of the learned Collector. There is nothing to indicate that Exhibit-22 was a document, which prove authorization of PW -1 Nandaji. 7. During the course of submissions, learned APP candidly accepted that there was no authorization of PW -1- Nandaji on record. 8. The provisions of Section 11 of the said Act coupled with Sections 12 and 13 thereof have its long drawn effects on entire search seizure and disposal activity. Considering the stringentness ofthe Act, which curtails the Iibelty of an individual to free trade certain checks were provided. One of the check was of taking cognizance in terms of Section 13, for which, we have Exhibit-21, the sanction letter. The other check is in terms of Section 11 of the Act, which requires power to carry search and seizure to be carried by an authorized person of the State Government or by a Police Sub-Inspector. In the instant case, it was PW -1, who was the person, interacted with the tractor carrying the agriculture produce and took the tractor to police where it was handed over to the Head Constable. Thus, the requirement of Section 11 of the Act is apparently not adhered to. In the light of this basic defect in the approach of the investigation, the very search and seizure has been vitiated and the conclusions thereof will be turning into acquittal of the petitioner/accused. 9. The other submission canvassed was, the agriculture produce was carried not from a tribal area, but it was from a village and, therefore, the seizure of the agriculture produce at Navapur will not be applicable. I do not agree to this submission because the village Ghodade is itself a tribal area while the village Navapur or Tq.-Navapur is also a notified area. The goods were found in the vicinity of Navapur, they were in the process of transport, as they were loaded in a tractor bearing registration No.MXN-3430. In the situation, there was apparent infraction of Section 5 of the said Act. 10. Since there is no valid authorization, the prosecution being vitiated. The goods were found in the vicinity of Navapur, they were in the process of transport, as they were loaded in a tractor bearing registration No.MXN-3430. In the situation, there was apparent infraction of Section 5 of the said Act. 10. Since there is no valid authorization, the prosecution being vitiated. Without further adverting to the merits in the matter, the order of learned JMFC, as also that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, dated 25.9.1997, has been rendered to be ineffective. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner/accused herein recorded by learned JMFC and modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in terms of Section 5(5) r/w. Section 12(2) of the said Act, will not sustain It is quashed and set aside. The fine amount, if deposited by the petitioner/ accused be refunded to him. The Supratnamal bond of the ground-nut for Rs.17,301=30 ps. tendered by the petitioner/accused is cancelled/terminated. 11. Rule is made absolute in the terms indicated above. Petition allowed.