Order This is an application to quash the order of the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, dated 21-10-1983, issuing a search warrant to the Inspector of Police, H-6 Police Station, requiring him to search and seize the account books of the petitioner and also to take custody of the goods of the petitioner. A complaint was filed by one Bharat K. Parikh, Finance and Administrative Officer of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., alleging that his company is housed in the premises of one A.P. Jain Commercial Manager of Oswal Oil and Vanaspathi, that in accordance with the trade custom necessary licence to store the goods were obtained from the Sales Tax authorities and that the plaintiff has been doing business in the said premises and was also holding stocks, but the said Jain used to have overall control of the keys of the locks of the main gate and without his knowledge no goods could be sent out and that Jain and his men clandestinely removed the stock and misappropriated the goods and the total value of the stock would be Rs. 3,50,000/-. That complaint was taken on file by the Magistrate under section 407, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, Jain, has now come up with this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the complainant has procured a search warrant to search his premises and that the complainant has restored to criminal proceedings only to defeat his legal claim and prevented him from taking legal proceedings in respect of recovery of storage charges and charges for supply of three expellers along with accessories. The contention of the petitioner is that search warrant has been issued without jurisdiction and the Magistrate did not apply his mind when ordering the search warrant and no reason at all were given and that the Magistrate has not applied his mind when ordering search of the premises and no reasons at all were given. 2. From the records in this case which have been sent for, I am unable to see whether an application for issue of search warrant was filed at all. 2. From the records in this case which have been sent for, I am unable to see whether an application for issue of search warrant was filed at all. The order of the Magistrate runs thus: “Issue search warrant to the Inspector of Police, H-6, requiring him to search and seize the account books and documents pertaining to the petitioner's concern and also to take custody of the goods of the petitioner alone or in the alternative ward off the area in which the goods of the petitioner is housed and to seal the same till further orders thereon.” 3. There is no indication in the order whether any application was made by any one and whether there was any affidavit filed in support of that application. From the order it is clear that the Magistrate has issued a search warrant without satisfying himself about the necessity therefor. The order does not contain any reasons, nor does it appear from the records whether the Magistrate has applied his mind before issuing this search warrant. Under section 93 and also under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has to exercise his judicial mind and must satisfy himself and that it is absolutely necessary to issue such a warrant. From the order, which is bereft of reasons, I am unable to come to the conclusion that the Magistrate, has exercised his judicial mind. This view of mine finds support from the ruling in Meyyammal Achi v. Venkatachalam Chettiar Meyyammal Achi v. Venkatachalam Chettiar (1951) 1 MLJ. 12 where Chandra Reddi, J., as he then was, has quashed a search warrant on the ground that the Magistrate has not given any reason for issuing search warrant and as it did not appear from the record; that he has exercised his judicial mind in the case. 4. The result is that this petition is allowed. The order of the Magistrate issuing a search warrant is quashed. R.S.R. ----- Petition allowed.