JUDGMENT : Hari Lal Agarwal & Manoranjan Prasad, JJ. All these four writ applications as ORDER :ed earlier to be heard together are being disposed herewith. In all of them the prayer is for quashing criminal proceedings pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, including the investigation by the Police in the Police Station cases mentioned in the prayer portion of each of the applications of the following circumstances : Four trucks carrying salt were proceeding to Assam on 7th April, 1980. When the trucks reached at Faringala Check post located close to the Bengal-Bihar bORDER :, the Police Inspector posted at the check post seized the trucks and arrested the drivers. Subsequently first information report was lodged with the Kishanganj Police Station alleging that the transportation of salt was being done in violation of notification No. 21423 P.C dated 20.12.1954 issued be the State Government under the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and thereby the petitioners committed an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. We are informed that the four trucks were released by this Court in different criminal miscellaneous cases on certain terms but the salt is still lying under custody. 2. Be that as it may, the argument is that the notification mentioned above which is the basis for initiating the police cases is not operative, and therefore, in the absence of any other restriction, there was no embargo on the movement of salt from any part of the State of Bihar to outside its territory. The contention does not require much discussion as the legal authority of this notification has been considered at great length in the case of Hem Raj Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar and others [(1980 B.L.J.R 361) when it was firmly laid down that the notification issued under the 1964 Act not having been kept alive till the 1955 Act, was enacted it lost its force. In that view of the matter it is apparent that the Inspector of Police lodged the first information reports under misconception of law. 3. In that view of the matter it is apparent that the Inspector of Police lodged the first information reports under misconception of law. 3. When the cases were taken up earlier for hearing on 17.11.1980, on the request of the State counsel-that the investigation will be completed within a few days and so it would be desirable to hear this case only after the investigation was completed, and final form likely to be submitted within a month and half, the Bench adjourned the cases for six weeks. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad who had given that undertaking and assurance to the Court even today made somewhat similar statements although more than three months have lapsed. He is not in a position even to tell us as to whether any action has been taken on his request or that any of the respondents has made any response to his communication. At one stage he suggested that this Court should get the informations obtained by sending a special messenger at its own cost as the State is not in a position to meet the cost. We must observe that in view of the undertaking given by Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad it was proper for him to have obtained all necessary informations and told the Court of the actual state of affairs. We, therefore, do not feel inclined to waste any further time over the matter and grant any further indulgence in a case where the very foundation of the alleged offence has been declared to be baseless by this Court. The State counsel, however, has brought to our notice the case of State of Bihar and anothar vs. JAC, Saldanna and others (A.I.R. 1980 SC 236) and although he conceded that if the case against the petitioners was only on the basis of the aforesaid notification then certainly he could not make any arguments in defence, but at the same time on the basis of the above authority he faintly contended that this Court should exercise such powers in very exceptional cases. The proposition as such cannot be disputed but on the facts of this case if the Police investigation or for that matter the original proceedings are quashed then it does not amount to interference with the police investigation as such for that simple reason that the Police has got no case for investigation on the facts alleged. The proposition as such cannot be disputed but on the facts of this case if the Police investigation or for that matter the original proceedings are quashed then it does not amount to interference with the police investigation as such for that simple reason that the Police has got no case for investigation on the facts alleged. The allegations do not constitute any offence in the eye of law. Had the allegations made out any case then the matter would have stood on a different footing. 4. Accordingly we allow all these applications and quash the Police investigations pending in Kishanganj P.S. Case Nos. 8 (4) 80, 4(4) 80, 5(4) 80 and 7(4) 80 as well as G.R. case Nos. 256 of 1988, 253 of 1980, 254 of 1980 and 252 of 1980 pending on their basis in the court of the sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj.