JUDGMENT 1. - This revision Petition has been filed under Section 397, read with Section 401 Cr. PC, 1573 against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated June 22, 1981 by which he partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated January 15, 1981 passed under Section 6.A Essential Commodities. Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus, 2. On March 5, 1980, Enforcement Inspector, Sri Ganganagar inspected the premises of the non-petitioners where they were carrying on the business of pulses and Vanaspati Ghee. On inspection, he found 32, 16, 14 tins of Gagan, Dalda and Rath Vanaspati therein Their stocks and prices were not shown in the list of prices and stocks of articles maintained under Raiasthan (Display of Prices and Stocks of Essential Commodities) Order, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'). Accordingly these 62 tins of Vanaspati Ghee were seized by him and he moved the Collect( Sri Ganganagar for their confiscation under Section 6A of the Act. After hearing the parties, the Collector confiscated them by his order dated January 15, 1981. The non-petitioner filed an appeal against this order in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar. It was partly allowed by his order dated June 22, 1981, he confirmed the confiscation of 32 tins of Gagan Vanaspati Ghee and released 16 tins of Dalda and 14 tins of Rath Vanasnati Ghee on the ground that they were not hydrogenated vegetable oil within the meaning of entry No. 4 of the Schedule of the said order. 3. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Judge has erred to hold that the Dalda and Rath Vanaspati Ghee were not hydrogenated vegetable oil. He further contended that the facts of the case State of Maharashtra v. Hausraj Daper, 1977 Cr. LR (SC) 148 relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are quite different and distinguishable. In this reported case, Maharashtra Schedule Articles (Display of Marketing Prices) Order, 1966 was under consideration and not the said order and the relevant entries in it were "Vanaspati tin" and "Vanaspati Loose" and not hydrogenated "vegetable oil". 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners duly supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. He contended that the provisions of Section to, Cr. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners duly supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. He contended that the provisions of Section to, Cr. PC., 1973 relating to search and seizure were not complied with by the Enforcement Inspector while searching the business premises of the non-petitioners and seizing the said 62 tins of Vanaspati Ghee as required under Clause 7 (ii) of the said order and on this ground, the release of the 16 tins of Dalda Vanaspati and 14 tins of Rath Vanaspati should be maintained. 5. The First Schedule of Vegetable Oil Products (Standard of Quality) Order, 1975 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub. clause (i) of clause (4) of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947 by the Vegetable Oil Products Controller for India defines "Vanaspati" as under:- "Vanaspati" means hydrogenated vegatable oil meant for human consumption." The definition leaves no doubt that hydrogenated vegatable oil for human consumption is Vanaspati. Item No. 4 of the Schedule of the said order is "hydrogenated vegetable oil". It is not in dispute that 16 tins of Dalda and 14 tins of Rath were found in the business premises of the non-petitioners and were seized by the Enforcement Inspector contained vanaspati ghee. The said order was clearly applicable to these tins. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar on this ground. 6. However, there is yet another aspect of the matter. The search and seizure took place on March 5, 1980. It is clear from the inspection memo and seizure memo prepared by the Enforcement Inspector that the provisions of clause (7) (ii) of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stocks of Essential Commodities) Order, 197i were not complied with, rewiring that the provisions of Section 100 of the Cr. PC., 1973 relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to the searches and seizures under this clause. Admittedly, there is nothing in these memos to indicate that the Enforcement Inspector called upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that a copy of the list of the tins seized and prepared was delivered to the muntin of the non-petitioner-firm in whose presence search and seizure were made. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that a copy of the list of the tins seized and prepared was delivered to the muntin of the non-petitioner-firm in whose presence search and seizure were made. It is also not disputed that the seizure was not reported to the Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as required under Section 102 (3), Cr. PC., 1973 It is thus clear that the search and seizure were made in contravention of these provisions. It has been held in Board of Revenue Madras v. R.S. Jhaber, AIR 1968 SC 59 at page 67 that anything recovered on a defective search must be returned. It has been observed in M.S.M. Mangudi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 Madras 275 para 4 as follows:- "4. It, therefore, follows that in the instant case, the search having been made and the seizure having been effected in contravention of the safeguards indicated in clause 14 of the Order and in violation of the procedural prescription in Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is also applicable to any such search, the stock of the rice seized has to be returned as such seizure is the result of an irregular and illegal search, in so far as this case is concerned. There is undoubtedly an irregularity in the search. That there has been no illegality is not for the respondents to raise at this stage, because they did not conform to the rule of law and anything done in violation of the rules of law or procedure is normally and illegality. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the rule nisi being made absolute. On this ground, the revision fails. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******