1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. No.1740 of 2008 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken for violation of the provision as contained in sub-clause (c) of Clause 7 of the L.P.G (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that when search was made by Marketing Officer (Rationing) on the order of Additional District Magistrate (Law and order), Ranchi in the premises of a hotel belonging to this petitioner, three cylinders were found. One cylinder was found lying over there empty, other one was fitted with regulator whereas third one filled up. The Manager of the Hotel could explain that on account of being consumer they have right to keep two cylinder. However, no explanation at that point of time was given with respect to one cylinder and thereby a case was lodged by the Marketing Officer (Rationing), Ranchi which was registered as Kotwali P.S case no.312 of 2008 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and also under Section 3(1-c) of the L.P.G (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 and the matter was taken up for investigation.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was taken, vide order dated 13.6.2008 which is under challenge.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained as cognizance has been taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the provision as contained in Section 7(c) of the L.P.G (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 for possessing one of the cylinders unauthorizedly but the case was lodged on the basis of search and seizure made by the officer, who was not authorized either by the Central Government or the State Government to effect search and seizure and thereby entire prosecution case gets vitiated.

6. Opposite party no.2 has appeared but no counter affidavit has been filed.

7. In the context of the submissions, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Clause 7 of the L.P.G (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000 which reads as follows:

7. “Possession, supply or sale of liquefied petroleum gas equipments – (1) No person shall –

(a) supply or sell filled or empty cylinder, gas cylinder valve and pressure regulator to any person other than a Government Oil Company or a parallel marketeer;

(b) unless authorized by a Government Oil Company or a parallel marketeeer, supply or sell filled or empty cylinder, gas cylinder valve and pressure regulator to any person other than a consumer;

(c) possesses filled or empty cylinder, gas cylinder valve and pressure regulator, unless he is a distributor or a consumer.

2. Every manufacturer of cylinder, gas cylinder valve and pressure regulator shall destroy by crushing those cylinders, cylinder valves and pressure regulators which do not conform to the Indian Standards Specifications”.

8. Thus, from perusal of the provision, it does appear that if any person possesses, filled up or empty cylinder, gas cylinder valve and pressure regulator without being a distributor or a consumer, he can be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the provision as contained in Clause 7(c) of the said order. However, for effecting search and seizure, it is only the officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government or any officer of the Government Oil Company not below the rank of Sales Officer authorized by the Central Government with a view to secure compliance of the order may effect search and seizure. The said provision i