IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5569 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- For the Petitiner: Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. N. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ---- 2. 14.05.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner questions his prosecution in Barauni (Zero Mile) P.S. Case No. 344 of 2008 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B of the Penal Code. The submission is that his name has transpired during investigation based on statement of the person to whom he had sold the fertilizer. The petitioner is duly licensed to deal with fertilizer bearing Licence No. 2(F) valid up to 31.3.2013, the date of the present occurrence being 22.11.2008. Counsel for the State urged that these are questions of fact to be examined during investigation itself whether the petitioner held a valid licence or not. That question need not detain this Court on the second submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel next urged that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Officer Incharge of Barauni (Zero Mile) Police Station. He is not one of the Inspectors authorized under Section 28 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 to carry out search and seizure. The submission therefore is that the very initiation of prosecution being by a person incompetent to do so in law, to permit the investigation to continue shall clearly be an abuse of the process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where the prosecution has been initiated at the behest of a person incompetent to do so by virtue of statutory orders this Court holds that the First Information Report itself is not sustainable in law. In the result entire First Information Report in Barauni (Zero Mile) P.S. Case No. 344 of 2008 is quashed. The application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)