1988 (3) TMI 410 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the investigation continuing beyond six months.
2. Authority of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to conduct search and seizure.
3. Effect of illegal search and seizure on the proceedings.
4. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Investigation Continuing Beyond Six Months:
The petitioner contended that under the proviso to Clause (f) of Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, the maximum sentence for the offense is limited to two years, making it a summons-case. Consequently, the investigation should have been completed within six months as per Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the investigation continued beyond six months without the Magistrate's approval, it was argued to be illegal. However, the court held that the offense under Section 7 of the Act is punishable by up to seven years, and the Special Judge's authority to impose a maximum sentence of two years does not reduce the offense to a summons-case. Therefore, Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply, and the continuation of the investigation beyond six months was not illegal.

2. Authority of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to Conduct Search and Seizure:
The petitioner argued that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Khutauna, was not authorized under Rule 12 of the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1966, to conduct the search and seizure. The court agreed, noting that Rule 12 specifies that only officers of a certain rank or those specially authorized by the State Government can conduct such actions. Since the Assistant Sub-Inspector was not authorized, the search and seizure were deemed illegal.

3. Effect of Illegal Search and Seizure on the Proceedings:
The petitioner contended that the entire proceeding was vitiated due to the illegal search and seizure. The court referenced the case of K.L. Subhayya v. State of Karnataka, where a violation of mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure led to the quashing of the proceedings. The court held that the illegal search and seizure in the present case formed the basis for registering the case under Section 7 of the Act. Since this foundational action was illegal, the subsequent investigation and proceedings were also deemed unlawful. The court distinguished this from cases where procedural irregularities during the investigation could be rectified, emphasizing that the illegality here was at the very inception of the case.

4. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani:
The petitioner argued that the alleged offense occurred in the district of Darbhanga, thus questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani. The State contended that since the violation was detected in Madhubani, the Special Judge there had jurisdiction. The court did not delve deeply into this issue, as it had already decided to quash the proceedings based on the illegal search and seizure.

Conclusion:
The application was allowed, and the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 691/84 arising out of Laukaha (Khutauna) P.S. Case No. 0093 dated 21-10-1984, pending in the court of the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani, were quashed. The court emphasized that while offenses under the Essential Commodities Act are now cognizable, any investigation must not be based on illegal search or seizure.