The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper authority and compliance with established procedures in inspection, seizure, and subsequent proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The judgment of the Court was as follows :––

Dutta, J. : This revisional application is for quashing the proceeding, being C. S. G. R. Case No. 1074 of 78 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, including the charge framed against the petitioner by an order dated 18.8.1980.

2. The prosecution case was that on 4.11.78 Sri N. L. Sharma, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch, visited the fertilizer-shop of the petitioner and found on physical verification that the actual stock of fertilizers was short of or less than the book balance. As a result, he seized the stock of fertilizers and the books of accounts and filed a case which was registered at Mayureswar Police Station. Thereafter he investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner.

3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the said charge-sheet and ultimately after considering the materials filed along with the charge-sheet, framed the charge under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that as Sri N. L. Sharma, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch, who investigated the case was not an Inspector within the meaning of paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, he had no authority to inspect the fertilizer-shop of the petitioner or seize the fertiliser which was stocked there and thus was also not competent to investigate the case and submit charge-sheet, and as the entire proceeding, taken in investigating the alleged offence, resulting in submission of charge-sheet, was illegal and void ab initio Sri Sharma having no authority to function as Inspector within the meaning of paragraph 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, the charge-sheet which was filed before the learned Magistrate as a result of such investigation, was illegal and the learned Magistrate could not validly take cognizance of the alleged offence on the basis thereof.

5. None has appeared on behalf of the State to oppose the Rule.

6. After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and considering the decisions in (1) Bimal Ranjan Roy & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1878 (2) CLJ 300, in which a learned single Judge of this Court has held that the inspection and seizure made without authority by an Inspector of the District Enforcement Branch were illegal and consequently the investigation carried on thereafter and cognizance of the case taken, became illegal and void, and inasmuch as under a Notification, being No. 2792-Fert. dated 17th September, 1974, published in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary) dated September 17, 1974, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Community Development, in exercise of power conferred by paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 and Item 21 thereof the Sub-Inspector of Police and all officers above the rank of Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch were appointed under the said paragraph of the Fertilizer (Control), Order, 1957 through out the State of West Bengal in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, we hold that the point raised on behalf of the petitioner is well-founded and should prevail. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not take into account the aforesaid notification of 1974 while he overruled a similar objection raised before him on behalf of the accused and it also appears that he did not apply his mind to the earlier Notification No. 501 dated 12th February, 1969, in which also only officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch were appointed Inspectors of Fertilizer for the purpose of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.

7. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and canno