JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This is a reference by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Agra, recommending that a criminal proceeding pending against the applicant in the court of the Magistrate first Class be quashed. On 27.3.1963 a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant by Police Station Kotwali in the court of the City Magistrate, Agra, the relevant portion of which runs as follows: "Seva men nivedan hai ki Ta. 27.3.63 ko bavakt 2.25 baje din hasya adesh Sriman City Magistrate Sehab mujh S.I. ne va hamrahi Sri Bechan Singh Saheb Addl.C.O. City Agra va Sri H.P. Sethi A.P.P. Agra rubroo gavahaanjail India Drug House Puwara P.S. Kotwali Agra ki price list va stock list 1 February 1963 va 1 March 1963 ba maujudgi Sri S.G. Sarin uprokta check ki gai to muljim uprokta koi list pesh na kar saka........" On the basis of this charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Rule 125(2) of the Defence of India Rules which is punishable under Sub-Clause (9)(a) of the same. A revision was filed by the applicant on which the learned Additional District Magistrate has made the present reference. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-Rule (2) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Central Government has made an order No. G.S.R. 1764 called the Drugs (Display of Prices) Order, 1962, which inter alia, provides that, "Every retailer shall display at a conspicuous part of the premises where he carries on his business the price lists so supplied by the manufacturer, importer, distributor or wholesaler for consultation by the purchaser." 3. The applicant is admittedly a retailer and should have been supplied a list by the wholesaler within the meaning of the aforesaid Order. 4. A contravention of the aforesaid Order is made punishable under sub-rule (9)(a) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rule with imprisonment the terms of which may extend to three years or fine or both and the offence consequently is cognisable. 5. In order to constitute an offence, punishable under the aforesaid rule, it must be alleged that a price list was supplied by the wholesaler to the retailer and the retailer failed to display the same at a conspicuous part of the premises where he carries on his business. 5. In order to constitute an offence, punishable under the aforesaid rule, it must be alleged that a price list was supplied by the wholesaler to the retailer and the retailer failed to display the same at a conspicuous part of the premises where he carries on his business. It will be noticed that in the charge-sheet the only allegation that has been made is that the accused could not produce the price list. There is no allegation that he had not displayed the price list at a conspicuous part of his premises as required under the rules. Even if the allegation made in the charge-sheet is taken to mean that as the applicant could not produce the price list when asked he would not have displayed it as required under the Order, the other necessary allegation that such a price list had been supplied to him by the wholesaler is wanting in the charge-sheet. It is to be noticed that in terms of the Order it is the price list "so supplied by the wholesaler" which has to be displayed by the retailer at a conspicuous part of his premises and a contravention of the same alone is punishable. Therefore, it is obvious that in order to constitute an offence under this rule it must be alleged that the wholesaler had supplied a list and that even then the retailer has not displayed it at his premises. Rule 154 of the Defence of India Rules provides that, "No Court or Tribunal shall take cognizance of any alleged contravention of these rules, or of any order made thereunder, except on a report in writing of the fact constituting such contravention, made by a public servant." It is, therefore, incumbent on a Court before it takes cognizance to see that the allegations made in the report on which cognizance is taken allege facts constituting such contravention. 6. From the referring order of the learned Additional District Magistrate it appears that no investigation has been done in the case and consequently the witnesses have not been done in the case and consequently the witnesses have not been interrogated under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It was a cognisable offence and ought to have been investigated in the proper manner. 7. From the referring order of the learned Additional District Magistrate it appears that no investigation has been done in the case and consequently the witnesses have not been done in the case and consequently the witnesses have not been interrogated under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It was a cognisable offence and ought to have been investigated in the proper manner. 7. I, therefore, agree with the learned Additional District Magistrate that the charge-sheet as it stands does not make out any offence against the applicant and the proceeding must be quashed. 8. The reference is accepted. The proceedings pending against the applicant before the City Magistrate on the basis of chalani report dated 27.3.1963 are quashed. It will, however, be open to the police to investigate the case afresh and, if they find an offence prima facie made out against the applicant, to submit a fresh charge-sheet against him in accordance with law.