IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10534 of 2004 Between: Ambati Narayana Reddy S/o. Ramana Reddy Sri Sai Baba Lorry Transport, R/o. 6-397, Pappula Street, Nellore Town. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore. 2 The Station House Officer, II Town P.S., Law & Order, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in intefering in business activities of the petitioenr in the name and style Sri Sai Baba Lorry Transport, Nellore and harassing the petitioner by threatending to seize the lorries for the alleged violation of the provisions of pprevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminator and without jurisdiction and also violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution of India and further delare the respondents have no jurisdiction to seize the lorries under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and consequently direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner nor seize his lorries engaged in the business M/s. Sri Sai Baba Lorry Transport under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10534 of 2004 ORDER: Heard on either side. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no provision under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), to seize or confiscate any vehicle. It is stated that the persons who are alleged to have committed an offence of illegal transportation of any prohibited food articles are liable to be prosecuted, but there is no statute or any rule under the Act empowering the police to seize any vehicle or confiscate the same. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in interfering in his business activities and harassing him by threatening to seize his lorries for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act, as illegal and arbitrary. In the instant case, though a counter has been filed, no provision has been brought to the notice of this Court under the Act, empowering the authorities to seize any vehicle or confiscate the same. But, it is stated that under Sec.102 and 156 of Cr.P.C. the respondents are empowered to seize any property in respect of commission of any cognizable offence and take further action thereon. Therefore, the respondents seized the lorry of the petitioner bearing No.AP-7W-3739 in Cr.No.81/2003. It is stated that though there is no provision for the seizure and confiscation, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in all criminal cases, therefore, as a material evidence, any vehicle can be seized and produced before the concerned Criminal Court. However, in the instant case, the vehicle which was seized, was already released and after filing the charge sheet the case was registered as C.C.No.272/2003 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nellore, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. More so, this Court while admitting the writ petition on 25.06.2004, granted interim order, directing the respondents not to harass or seize the lorries engaged by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. In the above circumstances, I have taken a view that there is no provision under the Act to seize any vehicle and confiscate the same. But if any crime is registered against the petitioner under Indian Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed, it is open for the police to take steps for seizure of the vehicle under the said provisions. Since the prayer of the petitioner is only in respect of the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and as this Court already directed the respondents not to harass or seize the lorries of the petitioner under the said Act, by way of interim order dated 25.06.2004, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the interim order dated 25.06.2004, passed in WPMP.No.13366/2004. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 17.04.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore. 2 The Station House Officer, II Town P.S., Law & Order, Nellore. 3 2. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies