IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10437 of 2008 SASHI KANT SINGH, son of Sri Anup Singh, village Dumrawan, PS Pakribarawan, district Nawada – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rajeev Nayan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A. P. P. 3 9.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Pakribarawan PS Case No. 28/2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The facts are that one Arvind Kumar was carrying 2 plastic jerkins on a bicycle. He was intercepted and it was found that he was carrying 40 litres of blue kerosene oil. On enquiry it was disclosed that the kerosene oil belonged to Shashi Kant Singh, the dealer. He further stated that he had purchased the said kerosene oil for Rs. 3000/-. A raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner who was not present. His daughter was present in the shop and it was found that 8 empty drums were lying in the premise. The daughter could not produce any register showing maintenance of stock and sale register. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted and cognizance was taken. The only point that has been raised on behalf of the 2 petitioner is that under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Central Government has notified an Order to control the public distribution of certain items which comes within the Act. This public distribution system (Control Order, 2001) promulgated in the extra ordinary gazette on 31.8.2001. In the said Order of 2001, section 10 deals with the power of search and seizure. Section 10 envisages that the State Government shall by a gazette notification issue orders with respect to the authority, who would be authorized to search and seize with respect to the transaction of business of fair price shop. Unfortunately the State Government between the interim period had not formulated any orders with respect to the power and seizure. It was only in the year 2007 that a notification was issued which authorized the Block Supply Officer to make search and seizure. The said notification is contained in the supplementary affidavit which was notified on 25.5.2007. On the aforesaid facts it has been argued that on the date of occurrence i.e. 14.3.2007 the Block Supply Officer did not have the power to make any search and seizure of the premises of a dealer under the Act and as such the search and seizure in the said case is illegal. On the basis of the notification obviously, therefore, the Block Supply Officer could not have searched the premises of the petitioner. If the premises of the petitioner could not be searched and seized, then it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner had committed an offence under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act as to be prosecuted under section 7 of the said Act. 3 In view of the aforesaid facts I quash the order taking cognizance, dated 30.1.2008 passed in the aforesaid case. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)