State of Karnataka Vs. Nageshwara Rao - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka pulses dealers licensing order, 1977 - rule 17(1) -- supervisory powers being conferred on officers other than police, search by police officer in violation of section 165 cr. p.c., illegal and without jurisdiction.;although as provided under section 10a of the essential commodities act, the offences committed under the act are made cognizable, but the supervisory power regarding the enforcement of the orders are specifically given to the other officers, other than the police, as provided under rule 17(1). that being so, the police officer should not have taken the responsibility on himself of supervising the enforcement of the order. the search made by him being in violation of the provisions of section 165 cr. p c. is illegal and without jurisdiction. - labour & services disciplinary proceedings: [k.l. manjunath & ravi malimath, jj] dismissal of the respondent who was working as a clerk in syndicate bank appeal - reversal of the order of dismissal - consideration of clauses 5(c) and 5(j) of the bipartite settlement held, admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place outside the premises of the bank after banking hours. the said incident has taken place in a hotel called riyaz, after the banking hours. if some incident has occurred outside the premises of the bank after banking hours, clause 5(c) cannot be pressed into service to terminate the services of the appellant. the incident cannot be brought within the provisions of clause 5(j) of the bipartite settlement. since the respondent has not acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank and his act cannot be considered as a gross negligence or a negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss, since it is only a stray incident wherein the respondent has quarrelled with his colleagues abusing them in filthy language and assaulted them in a drunken state after office hours and outside the bank premises. further, the scope of the appeal in disciplinary proceedings is entirely different and the appellate authority cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal by directing the disciplinary authority in what manner the charge has to be framed and how the matter has to be proved. order of the single judge was upheld. - besides, neither any case itself was registered before making search nor the permission of the magistrate was taken for making search, muchless the information received, said to be reliable, bad been recorded.orderpatil, j.1. heard. perused the judgment. the iind additional chief judicial magistrate, mysore, having acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge of the offence under section 7 r/w 3 of the essential commodities act and clause-3 of the karnataka pulses dealers licensing order, 1977, the state has come up with this appeal.2. the learned chief judicial magistrate has acquitted the accused firstly on the ground that the evidence is not satisfactory and secondly on the ground the search conducted by the police was illegal. the learned magistrate has observed that police has no such powers of search. in reaching that conclusion he has referred to rule 17(1) of the order, whereunder the government has authorized certain authorities to make such search for securing compliance of the order. the evidence given by pws-1 to 4 is highly discrepant in relation to the details of the seizure effected. besides, neither any case itself was registered before making search nor the permission of the magistrate was taken for making search, muchless the information received, said to be reliable, bad been recorded. he had proceeded to make search even without recording in writing, the grounds of his belief and specifying in writing his opinion as required under section 165 cr. p.c. although as provided under section 10-a of the essential commodities act, the offences committed under the act are made cognizable, but the supervisory power regarding the enforcement of the orders are specifically given to the other officers, other than the police, as provided under rule 17(1) that being so, the police officer should not have taken the responsibility on himself of supervising the enforcement of the order, as he had done here, in the case. the search made by him being in violation of the provisions of section 165 cr. p.c., is illegal and without jurisdiction. the learned magistrate was, hence justified in acquitting the accused.therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order made by the court below. the leave is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Patil, J.

1. Heard. Perused the judgment. The IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, having acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge of the offence under Section 7 R/w 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause-3 of the Karnataka Pulses Dealers Licensing Order, 1977, the State has come up with this appeal.

2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused firstly on the ground that the evidence is not satisfactory and secondly on the ground the search conducted by the police was illegal. The Learned Magistrate has observed that police has no such powers of search. In reaching that conclusion he has referred to Rule 17(1) of the Order, whereunder the Government has authorized certain authorities to make such search for securing compliance of the order. The evidence given by PWs-1 to 4 is highly discrepant in relation to the details of the seizure effected. Besides, neither any case itself was registered before making search nor the permission of the Magistrate was taken for making search, muchless the information received, said to be reliable, bad been recorded. He had proceeded to make search even without recording in writing, the grounds of his belief and specifying in writing his opinion as required Under Section 165 Cr. P.C. Although as provided Under Section 10-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the offences committed under the Act are made cognizable, but the supervisory power regarding the enforcement of the orders are specifically given to the other officers, other than the police, as provided under Rule 17(1) That being so, the police officer should not have taken the responsibility on himself of supervising the enforcement of the order, as he had done here, in the case. The search made by him being in violation of the provisions of Section 165 Cr. P.C., is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Learned Magistrate was, hence justified in acquitting the accused.

Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order made by the Court below. The leave is refused and the appeal is dismissed.