Cognizable offences and search seizure irregularities under the Essential Commodities Act do not automatically invalidate prosecution.

After the Essential Commodities Act was amended to make the offence cognizable, police could investigate and conduct search and seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if they were not notified as Inspectors under the control orders. An irregular or illegal search did not by itself vitiate the seizure, investigation or prosecution unless the accused showed prejudice, so quashing at the threshold was unwarranted. The alleged movement of fertilizer from Bihar to Nepal did not, on the stated facts, attract the Customs Act. The petitions challenging cognizance and refusal to discharge were rejected, and the trials were directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was amended to make the offence cognizable, police officers not notified as Inspectors under the relevant control orders lacked jurisdiction to search and seize essential commodities, and whether any illegality in such search and seizure vitiated the prosecution; (ii) whether the alleged seizure of fertilizer purportedly meant for movement to Nepal required prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 instead of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether, after the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was amended to make the offence cognizable, police officers not notified as Inspectors under the relevant control orders lacked jurisdiction to search and seize essential commodities, and whether any illegality in such search and seizure vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: Once the offence under the Essential Commodities Act became cognizable, police officers obtained jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to investigate offences under that Act. Search and seizure form part of such investigation. The earlier view that an unauthorised search by police necessarily nullified the entire prosecution did not notice the effect of the 1987 amendment and the later line of authority holding that an irregular or even illegal search does not, by itself, vitiate the seizure, investigation or trial unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The proper course is to examine prejudice at trial and assess the evidence accordingly, rather than quash the prosecution at the threshold.

Conclusion: The police had jurisdiction to search and seize in connection with a cognizable offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and illegality in search and seizure did not warrant quashing of the prosecution in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged seizure of fertilizer purportedly meant for movement to Nepal required prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 instead of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: The alleged movement of goods from Bihar to Nepal did not attract the Customs Act merely on that basis. The liability under the Customs Act arises in the context of goods moving from a place outside India to a place in India, and the factual basis pleaded did not bring the case within that regime.

Conclusion: Prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted on the facts asserted.

Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging cognizance and refusal to discharge were rejected, and the trials were directed to proceed in accordance with law with liberty to the accused to establish prejudice before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: After the 1987 amendment making the offence cognizable, police officers may investigate and conduct search and seizure in cases under the Essential Commodities Act, and an irregular or illegal search does not by itself vitiate the prosecution unless prejudice to the accused is shown.

---