The court held that the investigation of a cognizable offense should not be lightly interfered with by the Writ Court unless it is established that the initiation of the proceeding does not disclose an offense or the investigation is continued for purposes other than legal.

1. THE jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency to investigate ought not to be lightly interfered with and Writ Court would not normally do so unless however it could be established that the initiation of the proceeding by the lodgment of the First Information Report does not disclose an offence or the investigation is continued for purpose other than legal and is continued malafide.

2. THE law in that regard is now well-settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan kumar reported in AIR 1982 SC. 949. in the above-noted decision, the Supreme Court observed :

" The position which emerges from this decision. . . . . . . . . is that the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 of the Code is that the F. l. R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under Section 157 of the Code. Their right of enquiry this condition by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F. I. R., Prima facie disclosed the commission such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the Rule in Khwaja Nazir Mimed will apply the Court has then no power to stop the investigation for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offence. On the other hand, if the F. l. R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of information as led or received".

The Supreme Court further observed :

" There is no such tilling like unfettered discretion in the realm of powers defined by Statutes and indeed unlimited discretion in that sphere rain become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. The power to investigate into cognizable offence must, therefore, he exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Cout".

3. HAVING dealt with the law on the subject, it is now to be seen as to whether the law noted above has its due application in the matter under consideration as is contended by the petitioner.

4. BEFORE, however, adverting to the rival contentions raised in the matter, one redeeming feature ought to be noticed at this juncture, being the admitted set of facts and for convenience sake the same are tabulated herein below :

I) The petitioner No. 1 is a producer of Cement having its factory at Bilashpur, Madhya Pradesh; ii) The petitioner No. 1 has two godowns at Calcutta. III) The petitioner has not applied for any licence either under the West Bengal Licencing of Dealers of Cement and distribution of lev cement order 1982 or under the West bengal Declaration on Stocks and Prices of Essential Corn modities order 1977 before filing of the instant Writ Petition, iv) Seizure of cement from the godowns of the petitioner no. 1. V) The subject cement is non-levy cement, vi) No reply has been sent to the enquiry of the Petitioner no. 1 in regard to the applicability of any of the Control orders promulgated by the State of West Bengal or for its compliance.

Incidentally it is to be noted that prior to 1984, there was not strong facility but the same became necessary by reason of growing demand for cement manufactured by the Petitioner No. 1 in the eastern states and the Calcutta godowns are in operation since ' April 1984.

5. ON these state of facts, the Petitioners contended that neither the 1982 nor the 1977 Control Order has any manner of application in the facts under consideration and as such the First Information report ought to be set aside and quashed. It is at this stage the First information Report ought to be considered.

6. THE First Information Report reads as follows :

" I, S. l. S. R. Mukherjee of E. B. do hereby lodge complaint against SI. No. 1 Natesan Iyer son of Sri Panchana