JUDGMENT This Writ petition was moved before this Court on September 5, 1988, challenging the search and seizure and initiation of criminal proceeding on the basis of the First Information Report, which is Annexure A to the Writ petition. 2. It appears from the First Information Report lodged by Amritalal Sinha Roy, Sub-Inspector of Police, District Enforcement Branch, Hooghly, dated August 18, 1988, that on the dale of seizure as per stock register total stock No. 1113.10 Kgs. of mustard seeds but 153 quintals mustard seeds have been shown entered twice on April 1, 1988. So 153 quintals of mustard seeds have been shown in excess. On physical verification it was found 1077.80 Kgs. So there is excess of mustard seeds 117 quintals 70 Kgs. On physical verification he found 30 Kgs. excess mustard oil and he could not maintain the account and other registers and stock board properly and so he violated the provision of para 3(2)(3) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 read with item VIII para 3(2) of section 3(1) of West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Act. 3. This Writ petition, although was admitted by this Court on September 5, 1988, and thereafter Mr. Amal Kumar Basu Choudhury, learned Advocate, appeared on different occasions on behalf of the State and took time to file affidavit-in-opposition on different dates from September 20, 1988 to September 27, 1988, and ultimately on the subsequent date on 21st September, 1989, this Court, being satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner issued further interim order directing the respondents to release the seized articles on -furnishing security to the satisfaction of the authorities by way of personal bond or Bank guarantee that, may be acceptable by the said Authorities, within a week from communication of the said Order. 4. But ultimately no affidavit could be filed, as Mr. Basu Choudhury submitted on the last date of hearing on January 12, 1990, that Amritalal Sinha Roy has been placed under order of suspension and all the records connected with the present case are lying with him and the respondents prayed for two weeks' time to obtain the records, but till this date no affidavit could be filed. 5. Mr. Basu Choudhury submitted on the last date of hearing on January 12, 1990, that Amritalal Sinha Roy has been placed under order of suspension and all the records connected with the present case are lying with him and the respondents prayed for two weeks' time to obtain the records, but till this date no affidavit could be filed. 5. Mr. Satyendra Nath Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners, after placing the First Information Report, submitted that on the relevant date of seizure i.e. on 18th August, 1988, being the scheduled holiday of the petitioner's oil-mill, being Thursday, the search conducted by the respondents was unauthorised. 6. In this regard Mr. Choudhury further submitted that as there was no material before the respondents for recording reasons to believe that there was any contravention of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, on the date when the mill was closed, the entire exercise of jurisdiction including search and seizure was bad. 7. In this context be has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of (1) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. The Controller of Aluminum & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 Delhi 225, wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed as follows :- "The reason to believe that any contravention or the Control Order had taken place is a pre-condition for seizure of aluminium goods and the reason to believe must relate to the period of time when the seizure was made. Any subsequent acquisition of belief in this regard would be of no avail." 8. Admittedly, the search and seizure was made on August 18, 1988. which is a closed day, although some dispute was sought to be raised by and on behalf of the respondents on the basis of the letter of the Supervising Inspector, Shops and Establishments, Chandernagar, dated February 6, 1990, informing the Superintendent of Police, District Enforcement-Branch, Hooghly, that the provision of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963, was not applicable to the area in question in which the petitioners were carrying on business. The said letter of the Supervising Inspector which is filed in Court today is kept on record. 9. Mr. The said letter of the Supervising Inspector which is filed in Court today is kept on record. 9. Mr. Malay Kumar Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioners, to dispel the aforesaid doubt, has placed the muster roll register of the relevant date which contains the signature of the Inspector of Minimum Wages, Goghat Development Block, to show that August 18, 1988, being a Thursday, was the off day as recorded by the said Inspector. 10. As such, although some dispute was sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents, the said dispute bas been resolved before this Court. 11. Mr. Choudhury for the petitioners has placed reliance on the provision of section 3 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, which runs as follows:- "3(1) Every producer and importer, shall display conspicuously at a place as near to the entrance of his place of business as possible a list in Form A indicating the opening stock of each essential commodity held by him on each day. (2) Every wholesaler and every retailer shall display conspicuously at a place as near to the entrance of his place of business as possible a list in Form B indicating the opening stock and the wholesale or retail price, as the case may be of each essential commodity held by him on each day, (3) The wholesale price and the retail price to be displayed under sub-paragraph (2) shall respectively be exclusive and inclusive of all local taxes" 12. This it appears from clause 3(2) that every wholesaler and every retailer is required to display at a conspicuous place the opening stock and the wholesale and retail price of the articles of the essential commodities held by him on each day and as the relevant dale, being August 18, 1988. was a Thursday, the petitioners were not obliged to display any such stock and price list as required under the said provision and accordingly no offence is alleged to have been committed on behalf of the petitioners by not displaying the stock and price register list. 13. In this context further reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Nathmal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 13. In this context further reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Nathmal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 1975 SC 2198 , wherein interpreting the Rajasthan (Display of Price of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966, the Supreme Court made it imperative for the petitioner to display the price and stock list, but if the shop was not open on the day under consideration, the petitioners could not be expected to display the price or stock list on that date. 14. The aforesaid observation although was made in connection with a proceeding under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, but it is also applicable with full force in the facts and circumstances of the present case, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 15. Lastly, Mr. Choudhury appearing for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on tile observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (3) State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar, Guha reported in AIR 1982 SC 949 , wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows: - "The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under section 157 of the code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence bas been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfetterable discretion to commence investigation under section 157 of the Code. Their right of enquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R, prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. On the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the other Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code." 16. Mr. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code." 16. Mr. Amal Kumar Basu Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents, on the other hand, submits that as the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act is in seisin of the matter it would be just and proper for this Court to refer the matter to the said Court to arrive at the necessary conclusion as to whether any offence has been committed by the Writ petitioner as some dispute bas been raised by showing the letter that provision of West Bengal Shops & Establishments Act, 1963 bas not been made applicable in the case of the petitioner’s mill and this Court may not interfere with the investigation and the trial to be conducted by the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act. 17. In reply. Mr. Choudhury submitted that if the condition precedent for search and seizure was not present and the search and seizure itself was bad and no offence has been committed under the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, the petitioners should not be harrassed to face the trial as it appears from the facts of the present case and there is no dispute by filing affidavit that August 18, 1988 was not a closing day as observed by the petitioners and as no affidavit-in-opposition bas been filed on behalf of the respondent in a particular situation stated hereinabove. 18. Having beard the learned Advocates of both sides, I am of the view that the present Writ petition is entitled to succeed as it appears before this Court that search and seizure made on 18th August, 1988, was without jurisdiction and as the petitioner has not violated the provision of clause 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, the trial before the Special Court, which bas been restrained by this Court, is entitled to be quashed by issue of appropriate Writ in the nature of certiorari. 19. In the result, the Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 20. There will be no order for costs. 21. 19. In the result, the Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 20. There will be no order for costs. 21. Let a Writ in the nature of certiorari issue quashing the First Information Report and the cognizance taken, if any, by the Special Judge on the basis of the First Information Report and the respondents are restrained from further proceeding with the trial in respect of the petitioner and its partners. 22. The petitioners are discharged from the personal bend and/or Bank guarantee as directed to be furnished by the order of this Court dated September 21, 1989. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assit. Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioners on under taking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the same for communication to the authorities concerned for compliance.