JUDGMENT Bimal Ranjan Roy and another are the petitioners in this case. At their instance the Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party State to show cause why a proceeding pending against the petitioners in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, West Dinajpur, should not be quashed. The brief facts which have given rise to the present petition may be stated thus. On the 30th of January 1977, in the afternoon informant K.K. Chakravorty, Inspector of Police D.E.B. (S) Balurghat. with the help of another officer Sri B.K. Banerjee checked the fertiliser shop named and styled as Messrs Sabuj Supply Agency at Gangarampur which belonged to the petitioners who are the partners of the said shop. In the course of such inspection it was detected that the stock register and other records were not properly maintained and there was no display of the price board in front of the god own of fertiliser and having not done that the petitioners had violated the provisions under paragraphs 4 and 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order) 957. The entire stock of fertiliser and records were seized. Thereafter an information was lodged and investigation was carried by Sri B. K. Banerjee, Inspector of Police. D.E.B.(S) and submitted chargesheet under section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate West Dinajpur. On 16.7.77, the charge under section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act was framed against the petitioners. Thereafter 17.9.77 was the date fixed for examining the prosecution witness. An application was filed on that date before the court below on behalf of the petitioners praying for stay of all further proceedings on the ground that this court would be moved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the whole proceeding on the ground that K. K. Chakravorty, Inspector of Police. D.E.B., West Dinajpur who inspected the shop and godown of the petitioners and seized fertiliser and records and thereafter lodged complaint with the police was not the Inspector of Fertiliser as defined in paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order 1957, and as such the complaint, investigation and congnizance taken by the learned Magistrate were abinitio bad in law and illegal. Thereafter the trial of tile case was adjourned from time to time and the petitioners came up before this court with their application for quashing the proceedings. 2. Mr. Thereafter the trial of tile case was adjourned from time to time and the petitioners came up before this court with their application for quashing the proceedings. 2. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Inspector of Fertiliser has been appointed by Notification No. 2702. Fort dated the 17th September 1974. issued in the Department of Agricultural and Community Development, Government of West Bengal, and published in the Calcutta gazette, part I, September 17, 1974. A perusal of the above notification shows that under Entry No. 21 a Sub-Inspector of Police and officers above the rank of Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch were designated as Inspector of Fertiliser within their respective areas of work. Mr. S. S. Roy contends that Inspector K.K. Chakravorty, D.E.B. who carried the inspection of the fertiliser shop in question was only an Inspector attached to D.E.B., that is to say, District Enforcement Branch, but under Entry No. 21 all the officers above the rank of the Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch were designated as Inspector of Fertilisers. Therefore, not being the Inspector of Fertilisers it is contended that K.K. Chakravorty had no authority to inspect the said shop. So the inspection and seizure was carried and made by a person unauthorised under the law. It is contended that the entire inspection seizure was illegal and void abinitio and the subsequent proceeding including cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate became void and illegal. 3. Mr. Goswami learned Advocate appearing for the State contends that although it is true that only the officers above the rank of the Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch were Fertiliser Inspector within their respective areas of work it is not as contained whether K.K. Chakravorty was an Inspector of Fertiliser or not. Mr. Goswami submits that he should be given further time to make enquiry in this regard. I find no reason to allow further time to the State who had prior notice about the matter. The point urged before this court was specifically taken in paragraph 9 of the petition by the petitioners, inspite of that no material bas been placed before this court to show that K.K. Chakravorty was a Fertiliser Inspector within the meaning and ambit of Notification No. 2902 Fert dated the 17th September 1974. 4. The point urged before this court was specifically taken in paragraph 9 of the petition by the petitioners, inspite of that no material bas been placed before this court to show that K.K. Chakravorty was a Fertiliser Inspector within the meaning and ambit of Notification No. 2902 Fert dated the 17th September 1974. 4. It is apparent that the inspection and seizure was made without authority by K.K. Chakravorty, Inspector, D.E.B. Therefore the inspection and seizure were both illegal, consequently the investigation carried on thereafter and cognizance of the case taken became illegal and void. 5. In the circumstances this court has no other option but to quash the proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West-Dinajpur. The proceedings are accordingly quashed. The rule is made absolute and the petition is allowed. 6. Let the records go down to the court below as quickly as possible.