Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. This application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short the B C. Act) including the order, dated 4-11-1983/7-11-1983, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. 2. The facts which let to the filing of this application, in short, are that on 12-6-1981 the petitioner lifted one drum of Kerosene Oil containing 200 liters from Prakhand Office, Paru and carried the same from bullock cart to his shop at Kamalpura. It appears that on that very date a First Information Report was lodged by one Uma Shankar Yadav of village Gara under Paru polic station alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner while carrying Kerosene Oil to Kamalpura unloaded one drum of Kerosene Oil at village Gara in front of the Bathan of one jugal Narain Rai with an intention to sell it in black market and despatched the remaining drum to his village home. The informant with the help of other villagers is alleged to have seized the said Kerosene Oil. 3. On the basis of the said First Information Report, the police instituted paru P. S. Case No.69, dated 12-6-1981 and took up the investigation. After comoleting the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance wus taken which has been challenged in this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of cognizance on the ground that the allegation made in the First information Report makes out no offence at all and the informant has no power to seize the article under the Kerosene Oil Licencing Order. Therefore, the prosecution based on such illegal search and seizure is fit to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has submitted that even during the course of investigation while the police raided the shop immediately after the institution of the case, the police found that the petitioner had lifted only one drum of kerosene Oil containing 200 liters from the Prakhand Office and the police also found the stock in exact quantity available in the shop. According to the learned counsel, no case has been made out under Sec.7 of the E. C. Act against the petitioner because there has been no violation of any order made under the e. C. Act. 5. It is well settled that if no prima facie case has been made out against the accused, proceeding may be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure ends of justice, but if the facts are otherwise and in course of investigation police has found a case against the accused supported by any evidence, this Court will be reluctant to quash the proceeding. In the instant case, from the record it appears that in course of investigation the police found the stock intact and from perusal of the First Information Report, it appears to me that no case has been made out against the petitioner at all. Proceeding can be quashed if on the face of the complaint or the First Information Report, no case has been made out. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or substracting therein, if no offence is made out, then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding in exercise of its power under Sec.482 of the Code. 6. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of this case, I find that no case has been made out against the petitioner. 7. Apart from this, the next question that arises is the effect of illegal search and seizure on the proceeding. According to Mr. Agarwal, the entire proceeding gets vitiated on account of violation of Rule 12 of Bihar Kerosene Oil dealers Licencing Order. Rule 12 deals with the power of entry, inspection, search and seizure. Under this rule, the licencing authority or any Executive magistrate, Special Officer Incharge Rationing, Patna, Ranchi, Jamshedpur, dhanbad, Director of Food and Civil Suppy/additional Collector (supply), district Supply Of ificer, Assistant Rationing Officer, Circle Officer, Block develpment Officer, Project Executive Offiicer, Assistant Project Executive Offficer, marketing Officer, Assistant Rationing Officer, Assistant Marketting Officer, supply Inspector, any officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or any other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may search, seize or remove the stock of Kerosene Oil in question. It was vehemently argued that in the instant case, the seizure was alleged to have been made by the informant who had no authority under the law to make seizure and seize the articles in question. Therefore, no prosecution can lie where it is based on illegal search and seizure. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Ram Chandra Pansari v, The state of Bihar, 1988 PLJR 623 : 1988 BLJ 529 (DB), where it has been held that since the search and seizure made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction, the same has to be ignored. In my view, the iastant case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision. 8. Moreover the petitioner was dealing with the articles under public distribution system. Therefore, it is for the State authorities even no cancel his licence if something has been found against the petitioner. The occurrence is said to have taken in the year, 1981 and there is nothing on the record to show that whether the petitioner is still dealing with the fair price shop. The State authorities will be well within thsir right to cancel the licence of the petitioner. 9. In the facts and the circumstances discussed above, I find that the cognizance taken against the petitioner for the offence is not sustainable in law and it must be quashed. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the impugned order, dated 4-11-1983/7-11-1983 is hereby quashed. Application allowed.