Judgment :- (This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.75/2012 dated 09.09.2012 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysore City, pending on the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC-IV Court, Mysore.) (1) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR in Crime No.75/2012 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysore City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 18 of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act,1962, Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act,1972, Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 102 r/w 41(1) (d) of Cr.P.C. 1973. (2) According to the case of the prosecution, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Brach, Mysore City, received a credible information on 09.09.2012 about certain Antiquities and Art Treasures having been stored in House No.503, 5th Floor, Begonia Block, Sankalp Apartment, Yadavgiri, Mysore City and that the person in possession of those articles is likely to shift them to a different place. Immediately, the Assistant Commissioner of Police along with his staff and panchas and also along with the Director of Archeological Department, Mysore, went to the above said house at 12.15 noon on 09.09.2012 and conducted search of the said house, wherein he found several antiquities comprised of Ancient metal idols and also copper coins of several centuries old issued by different Dynasties and since he suspected them to be stolen properties, on account of the petitioner who was present in the house unable to give any satisfactory explanation as to the possession of those articles, all those articles were seized under a mahazar drawn in the presence of panchas and all those seized articles were kept in the house and the house was sealed. Thereafter, on the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the S.H.O of V.V. Puram Police Station, registered the case in Crime No.75/2012 for the aforesaid offences and took-up investigation. (3) Quashing of the FIR is sought principally on the ground that the procedure adopted by the respondent-police in conducting search and seizure without registration of the case as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid-down by this Court in the case of L. Shankaramurthy and Others Vs. (3) Quashing of the FIR is sought principally on the ground that the procedure adopted by the respondent-police in conducting search and seizure without registration of the case as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid-down by this Court in the case of L. Shankaramurthy and Others Vs. State of Lokayuktha Police, City Division, Bangalore Urgan Division, Bangalore and also the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4724/2012 (Rajashekar Vs. Ulsoor Police Station, Represented by State). It is also contended that, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who said to have conducted the search and seizure was not competent to do so, in view of Section 23 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. (4) Upon service of notice, the respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials produced. (5) Learned Government Pleader contended that, since the Assistant Commissioner ofPolice received an information that the aforesaid articles are stolen properties, he had authority to conduct search and seizure in view of Section 41 (1) (d) of Cr.P.C. therefore, the seizure cannot be held as invalid. He further contended that in view of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner of Police received a credible information about the likelihood of the antiquities being shifted to some other place, he proceeded to conduct the search and seizure, as such, the law laid-down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions is not applicable to the facts of this case. He also further contended that, since several centuries old coins were found in the house, they fall under the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, in which event, the local police have jurisdiction to investigate the matter. Therefore, learned Government Pleader contended that the registration of the case by the police is in accordance with law and that they have competence to register the case, as such, there are no grounds to quash the FIR. It is also his contention that the investigation is still at the initial stage and the Investigating Officer should be allowed to investigate the matter to find-out the source from which those antiquities and coins were secured and to ascertain whether these articles were stolen from any place or from the possession of any person. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the investigation. (6) Sri. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the investigation. (6) Sri. S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the police have no authority to take any action under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act since the authority to take any action would lie in any officer authorized by the Central Government in that regard and since the Assistant Commissioner of Police is not a person authorized by the Central Government, he had no authority to conduct the search and seizure. He also contended that, since nothing found in the house was a treasure within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, 1962, the local police had no authority to investigate the matter. He further contended that Section 41(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. would lay-down only the procedure as to how a police officer can make arrest of a person, found in possession of anything of which the officer may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and Section 102 of Cr.P.C. would only deal with the power of the police officer to seize certain property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence and they being general procedures laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not have over-riding effect on the provisions of Section 23 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act. He also contended that in view of the law laid-down by this Court with regard to invalidity of the registration of the case based on search and seizure conducted earlier, the entire procedure adopted by the police was without jurisdiction and authority of law, as such, it is liable to be quashed. (7) I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. (8) As noticed supra, the undisputed facts are that on 09.09.2012 the respondent-police proceeded to the house of this petitioner in Sankalp Apartment at Yadavagiri in Mysore City, on receipt of the alleged credible information that certain antiquities are stored in the said house and they are likely to be shifted to some other places and during search, several antiquities, and coins etc., were found, and they were seized and left inside the house and secured by sealing the premises. (9) Section 23 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act deals with the search and seizure. As per sub-section (1) of Section 23, any person, being an officer of the Government, authorized in this behalf by the Central Government, may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this Act or to satisfying himself that the provisions of this Act have been complied with may enter and search any place, seize any antiquity or art treasure in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Act has been, is being, or is about to be, contravened and thereafter take all measures necessary for securing the production of the antiquity or art treasure so seized in a court and for its safe custody, pending such production. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 makes application of provisions to Sections 102 and 103 of Cr.P.C., relating to search and seizure insofar as it may be applicable to searches and seizure in sub-section (1). (10) Thus, reading of Section 23 makes it clear that, it is only an officer of the Government duly authorized in that behalf either by the Central Government or State Government who is empowered to enter any premises and conduct search and seizure. Such search and seizure is only to ensure that the provisions of the Act are not contravened and strict compliance of the provisions of the Act and the seizure is to protect the antiquity and art treasures. The provisions of Sections 102 and 103 of Cr.P.C. is made applicable to such search and seizure conducted by the person so authorized by the Central Government. (11) In the case on hand, nothing is produced to indicate that the Assistant Commissioner of Police was a person authorized duly by the Central Government under this Act authorizing him to conduct any search and seizure. No doubt the contents of the mahazar drawn would indicate that certain metal idols and also copper coins of centuries old pertaining to the period of Cholas and Mysore Wodeyars were also found in the said house. It is in this regard the learned Government Pleader contended that the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act is attracted. However, according to Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, treasure means, anything of any value hidden in the soil or in anything affixed thereto. It is in this regard the learned Government Pleader contended that the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act is attracted. However, according to Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, treasure means, anything of any value hidden in the soil or in anything affixed thereto. There is no circumstance to indicate that any of these coins were hidden in the soil to term it as a treasure. Even according to the information received by the Assistant Commissioner, the antiquities are likely to be shifted from that place. Thus, the information was not to the effect that the antiquities are stolen properties. Therefore, there were no basis for exercising power under Section 41 (1) (d) or/and Section 102 of Cr.P.C. (12) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the officer who conducted search and seizure of the aforesaid articles had no authority under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, as such, it was without jurisdiction or authority. In addition to this, the procedure adopted by the respondent- police in conducting search and seizure without registration of the case, as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., is contrary to the law laid-down by this Court in L. Shankaramurthy's case cited supra. In the said decision, after referring to several decisions of Apex Court this Court has clearly laid-down that, it is only after registration of the case and submission of the FIR as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., police officer in charge of police station can proceed to investigate the matter. This view has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 15941 c/w. 15842/2012 disposed of on 05.02.2013. In the case on hand also, as noticed supra, the search and seizure was conducted without registration of the case and it is after effecting the search and seizure and by drawing a mahazar, the case came to be registered on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police enclosing the original mahazar and also list of the seized articles. Thus, from the above, it is clear that without registering the FIR as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the Assistant Commissioner of Police proceeded to conduct search and seizure, which has to be held as illegal in the light of the law laid-down in the aforesaid decisions. Thus, from the above, it is clear that without registering the FIR as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the Assistant Commissioner of Police proceeded to conduct search and seizure, which has to be held as illegal in the light of the law laid-down in the aforesaid decisions. (13) In view of the above, looking from any angle, the FIR registered by the respondent-police is without jurisdiction, as such, it is liable to be quashed. It is necessary to note that after the presentation of this petition, this Court directed the concerned Investigating Officer to immediately release the premises from seizure, if necessary by taking out the articles found therein, by conducting a detailed inventory. Later, it was reported that the premises has been released from seizure by removing the articles so seized from out of the house. In view of the above finding, it is just and necessary to direct the Investigating Officer to hand-over the seized articles to the petitioner. (14) In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The search and seizure effected on 09.09.2012 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, Mysore City, in the house of the petitioner and the FIR registered later on the basis of such search and seizure, in Crime No.75/2012 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysore, are hereby quashed. The Investigating Officer is directed to return all the seized articles to the custody of the petitioner.