J. P. Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the applicant Kartar Singh under U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975, section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and rule 114 Defence of India Rules pending in the court of the Munsif-Magistrate City, Jaunpur.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application are that Phirangi Lal, Supply Inspector, searched the business premises of the applicant on 11th July, 1975 at 4.00 p.m. THE business pre mises of the applicant is known as M/s. Ajanta Cycle Stores. He seized 89 tyres and 97 tubes which were not entered in the stock register and he thereby violat ed the provisions of the aforesaid rule. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that Phirangi Lal was not an enforcement officer within the mean ing of section 2 (d) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Con trol of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975, and he was, therefore, not autho rised to seize the goods, arrest the appli cant and to launch prosecution against him. In the counter affidavit filed by Ram Shiromani Pandey it is admitted that Phirangi Lal took search of the business premises of the applicant and that the, applicant was being prosecuted on his first information report. It is also alleged that Phirangi Lal was em powered by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur under the provisions of Sec. 2 (d) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975. The counter affidavit, however, does not specify the order of the District Magistrate. It does not give the date of the order and does not give any other particulars of the said order. The allegations in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in that behalf are vague. The opposite party has also not filed a copy of the said order. In the circumstances I am not prepared to place any reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and find that there is some substance in the allegations of the applicant. Para graph 2(d) shows that a Supply Inspector is not an enforcement officer. Ordinarily he can exercise the functions of enforce ment officer only if he is so authorised by the District Magistrate. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that he was so authorised, nor is there anything in the first informa tion report or in the charge-sheet that he was so authorised. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings against the appli cant Kartar Singh are quashed. Petition allowed.;