Honble N. K. JAIN, J.—This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 25.4.86 whereby he uphold the order of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 15.2.1983. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was posted as an Enforcement Officer and inspected the godown of one Banwarilal. He found that there was contravention of the condition laid down under the licence issued under Cl. 4 (2) of the Rajasthan food Grains Dealer Licensing Order, 1964. On this he filed a complaint against Banwarilal for the offence u/sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A document Ex. 5, described as copy of Godown Register was produced alongwith the complaint. During the trial it was revealed that Register no. 64 was interpolated as 69 by making 4 as 9. Thus the accused was acquitted of the charge on 5.2.80 by the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, Banwarilal filed an application u/Sec 340 Cr.P.C. On this application, the learned Magistrate ordered that a complaint be filed against the present petitioner for the offences u/sec. 193, 446 and 470 I.P.C. Accordingly, the complaint was filed by the Munsif Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. The petitioner moved an application and submitted that the prosecution is clearly without jurisdiction for want of sanction as required by Sec. 15A of the E. C. Act. The application was rejected by the order dated 15.2.83. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, which was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Magistrate has not formed any opinion as required u/sec. 340 Cr.P.C. for filing the complaint, therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is absolutely without jurisdiction. He has relied on Deen Bandhu Vs. State of Raj. (1), Brijmohanlal Vs. Sohanraj (2), Niramakayala Audi Narrayanamma Vs. State of A. P. (3). 4. Mr. P. C. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Judge has dismissed the revision. Mr. Sharma has submitted that the petitioner can not be allowed to take recourse of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka (4). State of A. P. (3). 4. Mr. P. C. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Judge has dismissed the revision. Mr. Sharma has submitted that the petitioner can not be allowed to take recourse of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka (4). He has also submitted that after considering the evidence it is not necessary for the court to use actual words of Sec. 340 namely prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice. Mr. Sharma, has relied on M. Muthuswamy vs. Special Police Establishment (5). 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 6. To resolve the controversy, it would be proper to read Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:— "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195— (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made in to any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary- ................" 7. A perusal of the above provision would show that the proceedings can be initiated upon an application or otherwise. The Court is required to record a finding that in his opinion, it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made in to any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 195. It is only when such a finding is recorded, a complaint can be made by the Court in writing. In order to record such a finding, the court is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary. It is only when such a finding is recorded, a complaint can be made by the Court in writing. In order to record such a finding, the court is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary. In the present case, the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 13.5.81 has discussed the evidence and observed that from the perusal of original record and evidence of Pratap Singh Naruka who in his evidence has stated that on 21.7.75 in the Godown Register Article A-l Entry Ex.P-5, before the entry relating to Banwariial he saw shop No. 64 and the Dy. Collector, Gajendra Singh Haldia said Mr. Shiv Prasad Paliwal to make 64 as 69. On 21.7.75, as per the statement of Omprakash, till 11, 11-1/2 the entry was 64 but thereafter in his presence Shivprasad Paliwal has converted Number 4 to 9. Banwariial has also stated that when he applied for shop No. 64 and when his signatures were taken, the entry of Godown Number was 64. Nanuram has stated that till 19.7.75 Shop No. 64 was entered in Ex.P-5. Krapalchand has also stated that Shivprasad has interpolated in Article A-l Entry Ex.P-5 and made 64 as 69. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate has observed that the offence is made out and complaint is to be filed. 8. In Deen Bandhu Vs. State of Raj. (supra), in this case, in the Institution Register of the Execution Application the entry showed Rs. 5011/-. is due and the same was changed to Rs. 5000/-. According to Reader the initial was of Deen Bandhu. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 23.10.80 referred the matter to the District Judge for having been tempered with the original record. But no findings were recorded by the Magistrate before making of such complaint that he is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into such offence. It has been held that absence of such finding vitiated making of such complaint and pro-ceedings relating to complaint were quashed by the High Court. 9. In Brijmohanlal Vs. It has been held that absence of such finding vitiated making of such complaint and pro-ceedings relating to complaint were quashed by the High Court. 9. In Brijmohanlal Vs. Sohanraj (supra) it is observed that before a complaint is made the court has to record a finding that an offence referred to in Sec. 195 sub-section 1 clauses (b) and (c) has been committed in proceedings in that court and that an enquiry should be made into such offence. Recording of the above finding is a pre-requisite for making a complaint. 10. In Nimmakayala Audi Narrayanamma Vs. State of A. P. (supra) it has been observed that the opinion or the satisfaction contemplated under section 476 is an objective and not a subjective one and should be reflected in the finding recorded or the order passed by the Court and such an order must be a speaking one and supported by valid and justifiable grounds to enable the appellate court under section 467-B to know the material on which the court had come to such a conclusion or opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to launch a prosecution. It is also observed that omission to record finding is not mere irregularity curable under Sec. 537 but goes to root of matter. 11. In M. Muthuswamy Vs. Special Police Establishment (supra) in that case the learned Magistrate had observed that the personation and perjury com-mitted by the accused were the products of a conspiracy and that personation and perjury and forgery before the court need to be enquired into and justice vindicated. The court had not employed the same words prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice. But from the observation of the Court, it was clear that prosecution was necessary for redressal of the grievance in the interest of justice. In the circumstances it could not be said that no finding had been given by the court and therefore the entire proceeding is vitiated. 12. It is clear that court while recording finding contemplate u/sec. But from the observation of the Court, it was clear that prosecution was necessary for redressal of the grievance in the interest of justice. In the circumstances it could not be said that no finding had been given by the court and therefore the entire proceeding is vitiated. 12. It is clear that court while recording finding contemplate u/sec. 340 need not strictly adhere to very language that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be held" used in the Section but it must use such language that it leaves no doubt that it was a fit and proper case and it was in the interest of justice to launch the prosecution against the person as clearly observed in M. Muthuswamys case (supra). In the instant case the learned Magistrate has observed that offence is made out and complaint is to be filed. The Magistrate has though considered the evidence but he has not given any opinion in clear terms that it is in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into an alleged offence, therefore, the observation of the learned Magistrate cannot be construed the opinion of the Magistrate that it is in the interest of -justice that enquiry should be made into the offence. 13. It is true that inherent powers are used very sparingly and they are used only if it is necessary to give effect to any order or to prevent abuse of pro-cess of the court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. They cannot be invoked in respect of any matter of the court nor they can be exercised to override express provisions of law prohibiting the interference if their exercise would be in con-sistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code. In the instant case, the learned lower court while dismissing the revision observed that the act of fabri-cation cannot be said to be an act in discharge of official duty and therefore, sanction u/sec. 15A of the E.C. Act was not necessary. It is true that this point cannot be a subject matter in view of the Supreme Court decision in Ranjan Kumar Vs. 15A of the E.C. Act was not necessary. It is true that this point cannot be a subject matter in view of the Supreme Court decision in Ranjan Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) which provides a statutory bar but in this case, since the learned Magistrate has not formed any opinion as required us/Sec. 340 Cr.P.C and allowing the proceeding without forming opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence amounts to abuse of the process of the court and therefore, there is no \ bar to invoke inherent jurisdiction and to secure ends of justice, the proceedings deserves to be quashed. In this view of the matter, this application deserves to be allowed and proceedings relating to making complaint deserves to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the proceedings relating to complaint and registration of the case are set aside.