JUDGMENT Rajeshwar Singh, J. - This is a petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been prayed in this petition that the Petitioners be permitted to surrender before the Court concerned which may be directed to consider the bail application on the date of surrender. 2. The facts which appear from the application and the documents filed along with the application are that the authorities inspected a dal mill and found some irregularities there. It is written in the first information report that in the office of the mill the applicants were found working, the persons present there did not produce documents, they committed violation of a control order punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and they ran away. Thus, in the FIR an offence has been alleged and the applicants have been shown as the persons who were actually working in the office. Even if they are not owners of the mill, they can very well be said to have abetted the offence as provided u/s 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, if allegations of the complaint are taken to be true. When commission of the offence has been alleged the police has right to proceed against them, as the offence has been made cognizable. 3. It has been argued that the Petitioners has got nothing to do with dal mill, and they were present there merely because they were owners of the building. This is a question of fact which can be hardly gone into in this petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. At present we have to act on the allegations in the complaint, and this defence will be open to them before the court where they are tried. 4. Here it may be pointed out that in view of the case of Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Another, AIR 1985 SC 628 and J.P. Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, AIR 1986 SC 833 the allegations made in the FIR have to be taken to be true at this stage. 5. In the case of Puttan Singh v. State of U.P., 1987 AWC 404 a Division Bench of this Court has held that arrest of a person cannot be stayed while acting u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure when the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 5. In the case of Puttan Singh v. State of U.P., 1987 AWC 404 a Division Bench of this Court has held that arrest of a person cannot be stayed while acting u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure when the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In the case of Mohammad Mustafa v. State of U.P., 1987 AWC 332 it was held by a Division Bench that power of the police to investigate is unfettered when the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, even though the name of the person committing the offence has not been mentioned. 6. In paragraph 17 of the petition an order of the Division Bench has been quoted ; but it appears to have been passed on the civil side, while the court might have been exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicants cited an order of single Judge dated 23rd February, 1987 wherein it was directed that the Petitioner shall not be arrested, and tbey should appear before the court on a certain date. But, in view of the Division Bench cases cited above, it does not appear proper to hold that this Court has jurisdiction u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to stay arrest, especially when the FIR makes out a case against the applicant. So, the petition has no force and it will have to be dismissed. 8. This petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.