I. P, SING. J. ( 1 ) RAGHUBAR Dayal applicant has moved this application under section 482 of Cr. P. C. to get the order dated 20-1-82 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi annxer 8 and the proceedings in consequence tlf that order as also on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the prosecution in the court against the applicant, quashed. ( 2 ) THE brief relevant facts are that in pursuance of F. I. R. dated 13-10-80 loosed by one Ram Kumar against the applicant at P. S. Prem Nagar. Jhansi in respect of over charge of Rs. 40/- towards the price of 40 litres of High Speed Diesel. As a result of that investigation, charge sheet dated 18-11-80 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, under section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act. But, the necessary sanction to lodge the prosecution had not been obtained. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18-11-81. However, fresh charge-sheet was submitted 8- 1 -82 in which contravention of Light Diesel Oil (Fixation of Selling Price), Order, 1973 was alleged. Of course, the section of the District Magistrate was obtained but that Was challenged on the ground that the District Magistrate had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and he granted sanction with respect to contravention of Diesel Oil (Fixation of Selling Price), 1973. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the said chargesheet, summoned the accused- applicant on 20- t -82 fixing 20-2-82 for his appearance. It is this order of summoning the accused applicant that the present application has been filed. ( 3 ) THE main contention inter alia is that only High Speed Diesel oil was sold and no over-charge was made. Rs. 40/- said to be over-charged was with respect to the sale of half litre of brake oil. The further contention is that there was no breach of the orders referred to in the charge-sheet or in the sanction of the District Magistrate. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit, it was made clear that in fact the contravention was of the provisions of section 7 of the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1980 (the correct year appears to be 1981 ). ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit, it was made clear that in fact the contravention was of the provisions of section 7 of the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1980 (the correct year appears to be 1981 ). It was contended that the sanction of the District Magistrate would cover the offence committed on the basis of the facts disclosed and placed before him. The mere wrong mentioning of the control order in the sanction of the D. M. would be immaterial. At any rate, such mistakes in quoting the relevant provisions of law could be rectified at the time of framing charges against the accused-applicant, who would have ample opportunity to press the point before the court below at the proper time. ( 5 ) HAVING heared the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. , I am of the opinion that no interference in exercise of powers u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. is called for in the present case ( 6 ) IT has been held in Hare Ram Satpathy v. Tika Ram Agarwala and others as under: As the Magistrate is restricted to finding out whether there is a prima facie case or not for proceeding against the accused and cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and the scope of the revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The High Court cannot launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merit and set side the order of Magistrate directing issue of process against certain persons. Similarly it was held in Khacheru Singh v, State. of U. P. and another1 as under: All that the learned Magistrate had done was to issue a summons to respondent No. 2- Satyavir Singh. If, eventually, the learned Magistrate comes 10 the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing summons to the accused should be quashed. In view of the above decisions the present application has no force and is held by dismissed. .