Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Raj Narain alias Kuka has filed the presentrevisional petition under Section 401 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure quashing the order dated 27.4.2000(Annexure P-1), passed by Additional Sessions Judge,Mansa, vide which the petitioner-accused has been chargesheeted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in FIR No. 17dated 8.2.1998 for prima facie contravening theprovisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Lubricating Oils andGreases (Processing, supply and Distribution Regulation)Order, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'the Order 1987')framed under Section 3 of the Act.
2. In this case, FRI No. 17 dated 8.2.1998 wasregistered against the petitioner-accused under Section 7of the Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code at PoliceStation City Mansa by the police on the basis of the secretinformation alleging that the petitioner-accused wasmanufacturing spurious mobile oil with packing of reputedcompanies and selling the same. Some quantity of allegedadulterated mobile oil, black oil and empty containerswere recovered from his business premises. As per thenotice of charge sheet, the petitioner-accused was foundcarrying on the business of processing and selling thelubricated mobile oil without obtaining valid licence fromthe competent authority and thus has contravened theprovisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order 1987 framedunder Section 3 of the Act.
3. Shri K.K. Goel, learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the entire proceedings againstthe petitioner have been vitiated and the aforesaid charge(SIC)investigation of this case was done by the inspector, whowas not competent to effect search, seizure and entry inthe business premises of the petitioner as per theprovisions of Clause 8(1) of the Order 1987. He furthersubmitted that as per the Public Analyst report of theForensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh (AnnexureP-2), sample of the mobile oil taken from the possessionof the petitioner was not found adulterated and was foundtallying with the specification of mobile oil as per ISIstandard. He further submitted that the only allegationagainst the petitioner-accused is that he was foundselling the mobile oil when the term of his license hadexpired. In support of his contention learned counsel forthe petitioner relied upon the decision of this Courtdated 21.11.2001 passed in Crl.Revision No. 447 of 2000,titled as Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab.
4. On the other hand, Shri Sukant Gupta, learnedcounsel for the respondent-State submitted that thelearned trial court has rightly charge sheeted thepetitioner-accused under Section 7 of the Act as he wasprima facie found to have violated Clauses 3 and 4 of theOrder 1987.
5. I have considered the submissions of learnedcounsel for the parties. I find force in the contentionraised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly,the raid was conducted by Sub Inspector Jalaur Singhaccompanied by ASI Roshan Lal and the alleged adulteratedmobile oil was taken from the possession of thepetitioner. As per Clause 8 of Order 1987, he was notcompetent to enter into and search the premises of thepetitioner-accused and seize the adulterated mobile oil asonly a police officer not below the rank of an Inspectoror any other officer of Government of rank equivalent orhigher thereto, authorised in this behalf by the CentralGovernment or a State Government can exercise such power.Clause 8 of the Order 1987 is re-produced as under:
'8. Power of entry search and seizure:-
(1) Any police officer not below the rankof an Inspector or any other officer ofGovernment of rank equivalent or higherthereto, authorised in this behalf by theCentral Government or a State Governmentmay, with a view to securing compliancewith this order or to satisfying himselfthat this order or any order madethereunder has been complied with.
(a) enter and search any place, premises,vessel or vehicle which the officer hasreason to believe, has been, or is aboutto be, used for the contravention ofthis order.
(b) Seize.
i. stocks of lubricating oils, greases andprocessing equipments.
ii. any package, covering or receptacle inwhich lubricating oil and grease arefound, and
iii. any animal, vehicle, vessel or otherconveyance used in carrying lubricatingoils and grease, which the officer hasreason to believe has been or is being,or is about to be, used for thecontravention of this order;
(c) send samples of any lubricating oil orgrease seized under sub paragraph (i) ofparagraph (b) to any of the laboratoriesmentioned in Schedule II appended tothis Order, for analysis with a view toknowing the nature and extent ofadulteration.
(2) The provision of Section 100 of theCode Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relatingto search and seizure shall, as far asmay, apply to searches and seizures (SIC)this Order.'
6. The provision of the aforesaid Order is veryclear. An officer not below the rank of Inspector or anyother officer of Government of rank equivalent or higherthereto, authorised in this behalf by the CentralGovernment or a State Government, is competent to enterand search and place or premises, vessel or vehicle whichthe officer has reason to believe that he has been or isabout to be used for contravention of the abovesaid orderand can seize the stocks of lubricating oils, greases andprocessing equipments. In the similar circumstances andon the same allegations, this Court has quashed the chargesheet in Crl.Revision No. 447 of 2000, decided on21.11.2001 (supra). Similarly, in Harpal Singh and Ors.v. State of Punjab, 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports,307, this Court has quashed the charge sheet in thesimilar circumstances. Learned counsel for the Statecould not point out as to how the Sub Inspector and ASIwere competent to conduct the raid and seize thelubricating oils. It is not the case of the State thatthe Sub Inspector of the Police was authorised to conductthe raid under the aforesaid Order.
7. Further, as per the report of the Analyst ofthe Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, themobile oil recovered from the possession of thepetitioner-accused was not found to be adulterated.Learned trial court has observed that though the ForensicScience Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh has found thesample of the mobile oil taken from the possession of thepetitioner as not adulterated, but subsequently the Policesent some of the samples to the Castrol India LimitedQuality Control Laboratory, Ballabgarh, which indicatethat the alleged mobile oil was not conforming theirstandard. In my opinion, the learned trial court haswrongly laced reliance upon this report, when the reportof Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh wasvery much available on the record. In view of thesefactors, there is no prima facie material against thepetitioner-accused, on the basis of which charge couldhave been framed against him.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, thisrevision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated27.4.2000 (Annexure P-1), vide which charge against thepetitioner has been framed, is set aside.