JUDGMENT Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha. J. In this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), the two petitioners, who are brothers and connected with the Chotanagpur Engineering Works, Ranchi, have prayed for quashing the investigation of Lalpur Police Station Case No. 90 of 1983 and the order dated 30.7.1983 passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Ranchi, issuing warrant of arrest as well as processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code against both the petitioners and some other accused of the aforesaid case. 2. On the basis of the written report dated 24.7.1983 by the District Supply Officer, Ranchi, to the Officer-in-charge, Lalpur Police Station, the police drew up a first information report and registered the aforesaid Lalpur Police station case no. 90 of 1983 for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for violating the conditions of licence issued under the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers’ Licnesing Order. 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Licensing Order’) made under section 3 of the Act, and started investigation. 3. In order to appreciate the question involved in this application, it is necessary to mention the facts alleged in the aforesaid written report in some detail hereunder: - An information from a confidential source had reached that about 25 truck loads of beef tallow had been sold out in Ranchi market and that the stock of tallow was lying in the Chotallagpur Engineering Works, Circular Road. Ranchi, for onward supply and a close watch was kept on the said premises. On 22.7.1983 some unusual movement was noticed in the aforesaid premises. On receipt of the aforesaid information, the first informant proceeded to the spot and requested Lalpur Police station for help. The sub Inspector along with a section of armed force reached the spot and one truck bearing No. ORM 671 was intercepted at the gate while leaving Chotanagpur Engineering Works premises. The truck was found loaded with 583 tins each containing 16.5 Kg. liquid material approximately. Out of the aforesaid tins, 300 tins bore mark 'Sunflower brand. Vanaspati' with manufacturer's seal. Out of the rest of the tins, 123 tins did not bear any mark and label and the remaining tins bore different marks, namely, Jyoti. Meenakshi. Taj, Apollo etc. The truck was found loaded with 583 tins each containing 16.5 Kg. liquid material approximately. Out of the aforesaid tins, 300 tins bore mark 'Sunflower brand. Vanaspati' with manufacturer's seal. Out of the rest of the tins, 123 tins did not bear any mark and label and the remaining tins bore different marks, namely, Jyoti. Meenakshi. Taj, Apollo etc. All the aforesaid tins along with the truck were seized and taken to Lalpur Police station and kept there. On 23.7.1983, the Munshi of Jethmal Satya Narain. Upper Bazar, Ranchi, produced a photostat copy of permit dated 22.7.1983 showing that 300 tins of Vanaspati were sold to M/S Madanlal Murarilal of Tatanagar, vide credit memo no. 7511 dated 22.7.1983 to be transported by the aforesaid truck No. ORM 671. The first informant accompanied by Sub Inspector R.P. Singh with a section of armed force went to the premises of the aforesaid Engineering Works to ascertain facts with regard to the remaining 283 tins found loaded in the truck and found 625 tins said to be containing 16. 5. Kg. each of coconut oil of KMP brand kept in the said premises. The proprietor Arun Modi, petitioner no. 2, confirmed in writing that the aforesaid tins were stored by M/S Raj Trading Company. Upper Bazar, Ranchi, on taking one of the godowns on rent and in support of the aforesaid fact he submitted a photostat copy of a letter No. 4/27-83 dated 20.7.1983 duly accepted by M/S Raj Trading Company. He also produced a photostat copy of M/S Raj Trading Company's letter dated 20.7.1983 signed by Adukia in respect of 625 tins of coconut oil in the rented. godown. The Food Inspector deputed by the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi, took samples from the contents of 300 tins of Sunflower brand with original seal intact which were claimed to have been said by M/S Jethmal Satya Narain. Upper Bazar, Ranchi. in presence of the representative of the aforesaid firm. One Ratan Adukia of M/S Raj Trading Company was present at the gate of Chotanagpur Engineering Works as well as at Lalpur Police station on 22.7.1983 at the time of interception and counting of the tins brand-wise, but he did Dot appear on 23.7.1983 for sampling nor any person came forward to claim the rest of the tins and samples therefrom were Dot taken. 4. 4. In the aforesaid report some more facts were mentioned which are quoted herein-below :- “From the facts stated above it appears that in order to justify the hiring of godowns in Chotanagpur Engineering Works, Circular Road, a concocted agreement dated 20.7.83 appears to have been made. Raj Trading Company, Upper Bazar, concocted this agreement when be knew that the truck has been seized from Chotanagpur Engg. Works. From the facts stated above it transpires that M/S Jethmal Satyanarain a wholesaler licencee of Vanaspati and M/S Raj Trading Co. of Upper Bazar, Ranchi, a wholesaler licencee of Vanaspati are "maintaining an unauthorised god own in the premises of Chotanagpur Bngg. Works, Circular Road. Ranchi and they have violated the terms no. 38 (which appears to be a mistake for condition no. 3) of the conditions of licence under Vanaspati Dealer's Licence Order, 1967 and thereby violation of Sec. 3 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which is punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Necessary action may be taken in this matter." 5. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the facts stated in the written report do not disclose any cognizable offence and the police has got no jurisdiction to investigate into the case. In support of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel has read the penultimate paragraph of the written report which has already been quoted above. On the basis of the aforesaid paragraph he his contended that the aforesaid paragraph is the inference drawn by and conclusion arrived at by the District Supply Officer, but no facts have been stated in the written report above the aforesaid paragraph disclosing a cognizable offence and he has further submitted that the aforesaid, paragraph cannot be said to be containing facts disclosing cognizable offence. 6. It bas been stilted in the aforesaid report that a truck bearing No. ORM 671 loaded with 583 tins of 16. 5. Kg. each was intercepted at the gate while leaving the Chotanagpur Engineering Works Premises out of which 300 tins bore the mark of Sunflower Vanaspati with manufacturer's seal intact. In the concluding paragraph, which has been quoted above, it bas been mentioned that M/S 1ethmal Satyanarain and M/S Raj Trading Company, both wholesalers licensees of Vanaspati are maintaining an unauthorised godown in the premises of the Chotanagpur Engineering Works and they have violated term no. In the concluding paragraph, which has been quoted above, it bas been mentioned that M/S 1ethmal Satyanarain and M/S Raj Trading Company, both wholesalers licensees of Vanaspati are maintaining an unauthorised godown in the premises of the Chotanagpur Engineering Works and they have violated term no. 3 of the conditions of licence. 7. Under clause (4) of the Licensing Order a whole-saler has to make an application to the licensing authority in Form 1 along with treasury challan in original showing deposit of requisite fee. In item no. 3 of Form 1 a whole sale dealer has to mention the place of business with description of storage facility owned or controlled by the applicant. According to clause (5) of tile Licensing Order, the Licening Authority grants licence to the whole saler in Form 3 which are subject to the conditiol1s specified in the form. In item no. 3 of From 3 exact address of place of storage of Vanaspati is mentioned. In condition no. 3 of the conditions of licence, it has been mentioned that the licensce is not to carryon business in or store Vanaspati at any place other than the premises specified in the licence except with the permission or the Licensing Authority or any officer authorised by the State Government. Forms 1 and 3 with conditions or licence have been liven in the Schedule of the Licensing Order which forms part or the aforesaid Order. 8. From the facts stated in the written report it is clear that there is allegation of storing Vanaspati in the premises of the Chotanagpur Engineering Works which is not mentioned in item no. 3 of Form 3. It is also clear from the fact stated above that the premises of the Chotanagpur Engineering Works is not the place where the dealers, referred to in the report, have been permitted to store Vanaspati. There is clear allegation that there bal been violation of the condition of licence which is punishable under section 7 of the Act. Every offence punishable under the Act, bas been made cognizable by section 10-A thereof which has been brought on the statute by amendment. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the written report do not disclose any cognizable offence has got no substance. 9. It has alternatively been submitted by Mr. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the written report do not disclose any cognizable offence has got no substance. 9. It has alternatively been submitted by Mr. Prasad that assuming that facts alleged disclose cognizable offence, but since there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners, the investigation should be quashed on that ground. Elucidating his argument, he has submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they have contravened or violated any of the provisions of the Licensing Order which is punishable under the Act. This submission has also got no merit and the investigation cannot be quashed on this ground. A soon as the facts stated in the first information report disclose a cognizable offence or offences the police gets jurisdiction to investigate into the ease. In order to confer jurisdiction upon the place to investigate into the offence, it is not necessary to disclose the persons committing the offence. The only requirement is that cognizable offence should be disclosed by the facts stated in the first information report. The discovery of offender is one of the purposes of investigation. 10. "Investigation" has been defined in section 2(h) of the Code as follows :- “Investigation' includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf” The case of H.N. Rishbud and another V. State of Delhi throws much light on the meaning and scope of investigation under the Code which is clear from the passage quoted herein below ;- “Investigation usually starts on information relating to the commission of an offence given to an officer in charge, of a police station and recorded under section 154 of the Code. If from information 80 received or otherwise, the officer in charge of the police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, he or some other subordinate officer deputed by him, “has to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Thus investigation primarily consists in the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case. By definition, it includes. Thus investigation primarily consists in the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case. By definition, it includes. “all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer". For the above purposes, the investigating officer is given the power to require before himself the attendance of any person appearing to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. He has also the authority to examine such person orally either by himself or by a duly authorised deputy…. . . Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of the following steps: (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing. if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places Or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5) Formation of the opinion as to "Whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under section 173.” The aforesaid view has been reiterated in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V. Mobarak Ali2 11. From the aforesaid decisions it is very clear that it is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to find out as to who has committed the offence and on the materials collected in the course of investigation whether in his opinion there is a case to place the accused person before the Magistrate for trial. To initiate investigation, it is not necessary to allege offence against any particular person. To give jurisdiction to the police for investigation it is sufficient that a cognizable offence should be disclosed on the facts stated in the first information report. 12. To initiate investigation, it is not necessary to allege offence against any particular person. To give jurisdiction to the police for investigation it is sufficient that a cognizable offence should be disclosed on the facts stated in the first information report. 12. In the case of State of West Bengal and others V. Swapan Kumar Guha and okthers3 after discussing large number of cases including the cases of R.P. Kapur V. State of Punjabi, S.N. Shrama V. Bipen Kumar Tiwari5, State of West Bengal V.S.N. Basak6 Jehan Singh V. Delhi Administration7 and King Emperor V. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad8 it has been held as follows :- "If anything, therefore, the judgment shows that an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I.R. It shall also have been noticed, which is sometimes overlooked, that the Privy Council took care to qualify its statement of the law by saying that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into a Report which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the Code does not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases. The position which emerges from these decisions and the other decisions which are discussed by Brother A.N. Sen is the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S. 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad will apply. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cog[1izable offences. 0[1 the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation On the basis of the information as laid or received. 0[1 the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation On the basis of the information as laid or received. There is no such thing like unfettered discretion in the realm of powers defined by statutes and indeed, unlimited discretion in that sphere can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. The power to investigate into cognizable offence must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code..............." 13. The ratio decidendi of all the decisions is that if allegation in the report discloses cognizable offence, then the police has got unfettered power to investigate into the offence and the Court has no power to stop the investigation and to do so will be interference with the statutory power given to the police under sec. 156 and 157 of the Code. It has been held above that the allegations made in the report do, primafacie, disclose commission of offence punishable under section 7 of the Act, which is a cognizable offence. Once the allegation made in the report discloses cognizable offence, the police gets jurisdiction to investigate as under law investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police. It is bounden duty of the police to investigate into such offence and bring the offender to book by collecting evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. As soon as the investigation is completed and the Investigating Officer submits report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code, the duty of the police comes to an end. On cognizance of the offence being taken by the court the police function to investigate subject to the provisions contained in section 173 (8) of the Code. If on completion of the investigation the police finds that the petitioners have not committed any cognizable offence Or that there is no sufficient evidence against the petitioners to put them on trial, it is open to it to submit final report. 14. The case of Guru Rachon Singh V. State of Bihar9 which is a single Judge case, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners has got not application to the facts of the instant case. 14. The case of Guru Rachon Singh V. State of Bihar9 which is a single Judge case, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners has got not application to the facts of the instant case. Besdes, in view of the Supreme Court decision referred to above, no reliance can be placed on it. In that case there was no allegation that the accused was dealer but In this case it has been clearly stated in the written report that M/S Jethmal Satyanarain and M/S Raj Trading, Company are whole-saler licensees and the provisions of the Licensing Order bas been contravened by storing Vanaspati al a place other than mentioned in their licence. The other case relied upon by Mr. Prasad. Bal Gapol Goenka V. State of West Bengal and others10 has also no application to the facts of this case at all. In that case, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court stopped the investigation on the ground that the allegations made in the report did not constitute an, offence under Section 405 of the Penal Code. It was held therein that the allegation constituted an offence under the Employees Provident Fund Act, but the F.I.R. having been lodged long after the period of limitation, it was held that no useful purpose would be served by the police continuing the investigation and ultimately submitting final form and on the said ground the investigation was stopped. 15. No doubt, the police has been given by the Code unfettered and exclusive power to investigate into a cognizable offence without any interference from other body, but in appropriate cases the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal power and stopping the investigation if it comes to the conclusion that the power of investigation is being exercised by a police officer malafide. The aforesaid view bas been taken in the case of S.N. Sharma V. Bipin Kumar Tiwari and others6 which will be clear from the lines quoted hereinbelow :- “......It appears to U8 that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised b) a police officer malafide, the High Court can always is we a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from exercising his legal powers." This case has also been followed in the case of State of Bihar and another V.J.A.C. Saldanna and others11. 16. In the present case, no allegation of malafide bas been made against the Investigation authority. On the fact and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case for quashing the investigation. 17. As stated above, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 30.7.1983 passed by the Special Judge by which warrant of arrest and processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code were issued on the prayer made by the Investigation Officer. It has been submitted by Mr. Prassad that the learned Special Judge: issued the warrant of arrest without applying his mind and has merely acted at the behest of the police. The Officer-in-charge filed an application before the court for issue of warrant of arrest as well as processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code alleging therein that the Officer-in-charge made attempt to arrest the petitioners and other accused persons but they were absconding. This petition was considered by the learned Special Judge on 30.7 1983 who ordered for issue of warrant of arrest only and not the processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code. He has mentioned in the order that processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code should be issued simultaneously unless a ground for the same was made out by the Investigating Officer. He has mentioned in the order that processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code should be issued simultaneously unless a ground for the same was made out by the Investigating Officer. This shows that he has applied his mind and after applying his mind he ordered for issue of warrant of arrest only and not the processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code and. Therefore, there is no merit in the sub mission made on behalf of the petitioners. 18. After the issue of warrant of arrest, on the same day another application was filed by the Investigating Officer for issue of processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code. In the said application it was mentioned that the accused persons were avoiding arrest by absconding and it had been learnt that they were removing their properties. This application was heard and thereafter the court being satisfied that the accused persons were evading arrest and that they were also removing their properties from the jurisdiction of the court, ordered for issue of processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code- simultaneously against the petitioners as well as other accused persons. In this order it has been mentioned that warrant of arrest was issued in the first hour and thereafter on the another petition by the Officer-in-charge the processes under sections 82 and 83 were being issued. The learned Special Judge has applied his mind and has assigned reasons for issuing processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code simultaneously in the impugned order. The aforesaid order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality calling for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code. Thus, there is no substance in this submission also. 19. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, mentioned above. I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.