IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1231 of 2008 RAM UMED RAI, SON OF SRI RAM BRIKSHA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAK MAJAHAIDI , P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narayan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. -------------- 3. 24.11.2008. The petitioner who is the sole accused in Mahua Police Station Case No.142 of 2007 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “E.C. Act”) has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom including the First Information Report. It appears that on the written report of the Block Supply Officer. Mahua, Vaishali, dated 21.9.2007, a F.I.R. was recorded alleging therein that the petitioner herein had been apprehended by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mahua with 120 liters of blue kerosene oil which was allegedly being carried from one place to another for the purposes of black marketing and on demand for producing the relevant papers in connection with the aforesaid kerosene oil no document or paper could be produced and it was presumed and suspected that the blue kerosene oil was being transmitted for purposes of black marketing. The seized kerosene oil had been brought to the police station for safe custody. Later on a seizure list was prepared. - 2 - The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: (i) that no action can be taken on the basis of illegal search and seizure since the Sub Inspector of Police was not authorized to conduct search and seizure and any prosecution initiated on the basis of search and seizure by an officer not empowered to do so is without sanction of law and is not valid. For this purpose, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Ram Bilash Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Bihar (1990 BBCJ 441), Mahendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998(1) PLJR 289 and Sri Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998(2) PLJR 330. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that merely because some trade articles were being carried, it cannot be inferred, without anything else, that they were being carried for sale in black market. The State of Bihar by a Notification No.30 dated 27.12.1988 conferred powers of entry, search and seizure etc. on several officers including any police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector. In view of the changed position in law consequent to the amendment taking place in Section 30 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order by virtue of the amendment aforesaid the search and seizure in the instant case cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. Accordingly, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, this application has to succeed on the second - 3 - point, i.e., merely because some trade articles are being carried, it cannot be inferred without anything else that they were being carried for sale in black market. There is yet another aspect of the matter. There is no mention in the F.I.R. in respect of what Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act has been violated by the petitioner so as to invite his prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It is by now well settled that to invite prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act there must be a clear averment to the effect stating as to which Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act had been violated or contravened. In the aforesaid circumstances, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)