ORDER The revisional application seeks to quash a proceeding pending against the petitioner in the court of a learned Judge, Special Court, Midnapore, under s. 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of certain provisions of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985, on two grounds. The first ground is that the investigation was made not by an Inspector appointed under paragraph 27 of the said Order and as such the investigation was invalid; the other ground is that under paragraph 28 of the Order the officer making the seizure is required to record that he held reason to believe that at the place searched, any fertiliser was being manufactured, sold, stored, etc. contrary to the provisions of the Order, which was not done in the instant case. 2. It appears that one Sri S.K. Chakraborty, an Inspector of Police, District Enforcement Branch, Midnapore, raided the shop room of the petitioner and made some seizure etc. and thereafter he lodged a First Information Report in the concerned Police Station and the subsequent investigation was made by Sri H.B. Chowdhury a Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the D.E.O. Salbony who ultimately submitted a charge sheet. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that a Sub-Inspector of Police was not authorised to make an investigation and thus the entire proceeding is vitiated. In this connection my attention was also drawn to the provision of paragraph 28 of the Order which prescribes the power of an Inspector appointed under paragraph 27 thereof. Now paragraph 28 nowhere provides that an investigation can only be made by an Inspector but it only lays down certain powers vested in the Inspector under the Order such as requiring any manufacturer, agency, dealer, etc. to give him certain information, drawing samples, entering upon and searching premises, seizure or detention of any fertiliser, seizure of books of accounts, etc. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that only these specified powers are to be exercised by an Inspector appointed under the Order but rest of the investigation can be made by an officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, not correct to argue that since in the instant case part of the investigation has been made by Sri H.B. Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector of Police, it must be held to be vitiated. It is, therefore, not correct to argue that since in the instant case part of the investigation has been made by Sri H.B. Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector of Police, it must be held to be vitiated. There is nothing on the record to show that Sri H.B. Chowdhury, Sub-Inspector of Police had exercised any of the powers specified in paragraph 98 of the Order and in such situation rest of the investigation by him cannot be held to be void as contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon a Bench decision of this Court in Kamalaranjan Dey v. The State, 86 CWN 917. In that case a proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act, also for contravention of the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order though of 1957, was struck down on the ground that the inspection of the fertiliser shop and seizure of the fertiliser was made by one Sri N.L. Sharma, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch. This ruling is by no means an authority for the proposition that the entire investigation must be made by an inspector appointed under the Fertilizer Control Order. In that case a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was not authorised to exercise the powers of an Inspector under paragraph 20 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1957, corresponding to paragraph 28 of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985, having searched the shop and seized the fertilizer committed an illegality and in such circumstances the entire investigation was held to be invalid. This consideration does not apply in the instant case because here search and seizure having been made by Sri S.K. Chakraborty, an Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch, there was no irregularity or illegality in the same. The subsequent investigation by Sri H.B. Chowdhury, a Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be questioned in the absence of any law that the entire investigation should be made by an Inspector. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also contended that there was nothing to show that even Sri Chakraborty, although an Inspector attached to the District Enforcement Branch was appointed as an Inspector under paragraph 27 of the Order. It does not appear that this ground was taken in the revisional application wherein regarding investigation, all that was stated was that the Sub-Inspector of Police Sri H.B. Chowdhury had no jurisdiction to investigate the case. It does not appear that this ground was taken in the revisional application wherein regarding investigation, all that was stated was that the Sub-Inspector of Police Sri H.B. Chowdhury had no jurisdiction to investigate the case. In this situation, the opposite party was not expected to countenance this argument by production of relevant notification and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that Sri Chakraborty was not authorised to exercise any of the powers under paragraph 28 of the Order. 4. Regarding the other ground taken in support of the revisional application viz. failure to state either in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet that Sri Chakraborty had reason to believe that any fertilizer was being sold, stored, etc. at the place searched contrary to the provisions of Order, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to a Single Bench decision of Madras High Court in P. Appavu Gounder v. Collector of south Arcot, 1982 Cri. LJ 1145. In that case in a proceeding for confiscation officer’s. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, it was held that it was essential for the validity of confiscation that the competent officer's reason to believe contravention of the relevant order should be mentioned. This decision followed a ruling of the Supreme Court in K.L. Sobhayya v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 711 , which was a case under Mysore Excise Act, s. 54 whereof empowered the searching officer to make search and seizure after recording the grounds of his belief that an offence under specified sections of the Act had been, was being or was likely to be committed. Their Lordships found that this section continued valuable safeguard for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment and therefore if no record was made of the grounds on the basis of which the searching officer had the requisite belief, the search made by him would be without jurisdiction vitiating the conviction. This authority is clearly distinguishable because in that case there was a statutory requirement for recording the reason for the belief while paragraph 28 of the aforesaid Order, with which we are concerned, only require; the Inspector to have reason to believe as a condition for exercising only some of the powers, namely those stated in clauses (c) to (e) of the paragraph, but it does not require the Inspector to make a record of such reason. Therefore it cannot be said that it was incumbent upon the Inspector to specifically record that he had reason to believe that any provision of the Order was or was being or was likely to be contravened and there would be enough compliance with the provisions of law if his report disclosed facts which could support an inference that he had reason for such belief. In the instant case the First Information Report lodged by Inspector Chakraborty discloses that he called upon the petitioner to cause production of certain books obviously in exercise of power under clause (a) of paragraph 28 which does not require the Inspector to have reason for the requisite belief as a pre-condition for exercise of such power. The First Information Report further disclosed that the Inspector noticed a stock-cum-price board, which under paragraph 4 of the Order was supposed to have been prominently displayed, but it was not properly maintained. Once such an irregularity in stock-cum-price board was noticed by the Inspector, he could no doubt have reason to believe that some provision of the Order was or was being or was likely to be contravened which gave him enough power to search the place and seize the offending articles. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this particular case it cannot be successfully urged that the search and seizure by the Inspector was vitiated for not recording the requisite belief. 5. On the above premises I do not find any merit in this revisional application which is, therefore, rejected. Interim orders are vacated and the learned Court below is directed to dispose of the proceeding with utmost expedition. Application rejected.