Judgment Surendra Narain Jha, J. 1. This application has been med by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding including the first information report lodged on 20-7-1984 on the basis of which a criminal case bearing Kutumba P.S. Case No. 103 of 1984 was instituted under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act against the petitioner. 2. It appears that on 20-7-1984 at about 11 A.M. the Block Agriculture Officer lodged the first information report alleging, inter alia that while he inspected the business premises of the petitioner, he found certain discrepancies regarding stock of Urea and other fertilizers as appeared on the Display Board and the actual position found in the shop. From the first information report, it appears that on the Display Board, the stock was shown 2 bags of Urea whereas 8 bags full and 45 kgs. in a loose bag of Urea was found. Similarly there was discrepancy in Hara Bahar fertilizer and other insecticides. He also found that the stock register has not been maintained upto date and it was only written upto 16-7-1984. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the aforesaid case was registered and the police started investigation. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the shop in question is a proprietory firm under the name and style of M/s. Sanjay Kumar Keetnasi Kendra at Amba and so one Sanjay Kumar is the proprietor of the said firm. The petitioner is the father of Sanjay Kumar. It was submitted on his behalf that he has no concern with the said firm and no case at all has been made out against him under Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act. It was further contended that the Block Agriculture Officer was not even competent to inspect the business premises of the son of the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has filed a notification (Annexure-2) issued by the Agricultural Production Commissioner, Bihar authorising certain officers to inspect the fertilizers premises, in which the name of Block Agriculture Officer does not appear. This contention of the petitioner was not controverted by the learned Counsel for the State. 4. According to the learned Counsel, the first information report suffers from fundamental legal defect such as want of power to inspect the said business premises by the Block Agriculture Officer. This contention of the petitioner was not controverted by the learned Counsel for the State. 4. According to the learned Counsel, the first information report suffers from fundamental legal defect such as want of power to inspect the said business premises by the Block Agriculture Officer. So, on this ground alone, the first information report is fit to be quashed. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of Smt. Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konagalgi and others, where the Supreme Court has laid down certain principles in which the High Court can quash a criminal case in the initial stage itself and one of the principles enunciated therein is that where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defect, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority, and the like. the criminal case can be quashed at the initial stage itself. 5. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it seems to me that the present case is one in which the High Court should quash the proceedings. 6. Quite apart, the first information was lodged as far as in the year 1984 and the matter has become too stale now. Therefore, in ends of justice, in my view, it is a fit case where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Relying on the case of Smt. Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi and others (supra) and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, I hereby quash the entire proceeding including the first information report of Kutumba P.S. Case No. 103 of 1984. 8. In the result, this application is allowed.