Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. In this application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding in Barauni Rail P.S. Case No. 140/90 (G.R. No. 2825/90). The ground on which the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding is that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is illegal, and for the same reason the confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner u/s. 6A of the Act in Cr. Misc. Case No. 29/90 pending before the Collector, Begusarai is also illegal. It is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct release of the sum of Rs. 1,60,560 which represents the sale proceeds of the foodgrains in question, namely wheat, which has been deposited in the Government Treasury. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm carrying on business as general merchant and common &gent. Its normal place of business is Delhi and it holds a valid licence for carrying on business in wheat under the provisions of the Delhi Wheat (Licensing and Control) Order, 1988, and a copy of the licence issued in its name has been annexed as Annexure-1. In the district of Begusarai at Teghra there is a. firm known as M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill. In the month of October, 1990 the aforesaid M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill had placed an order on the petitioner-firm for supply of wheat. Accordingly, the petitioner- firm sent consignment of 550 bags of wheat under cover of three bills Nos. 895, 896 and 889, dated 26.10.1990, 16.10.1990 and 27.10.1990 respectively for a total of 550 bags. The consignment was dispatched in railway wagons from Delhi, and its destination was Barauni Junction. The railway receipt was issued in favour of self so as to secure payment before the goods were delivered to the consignee. The consignee M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill did not pay for the consignment and take deli very of the goods with the result that the railway receipt was returned to the petitioner-firm. Despite persuasion M/s. Bajrang Roller Mill did not honour their commitment. Since the goods were lying in the railway go down and were incurring liability the petitioner firm sent its Manager to arrange for the sale of consignment to any other trader. Despite persuasion M/s. Bajrang Roller Mill did not honour their commitment. Since the goods were lying in the railway go down and were incurring liability the petitioner firm sent its Manager to arrange for the sale of consignment to any other trader. Ultimately, M/s. Sultania Enterprises agreed to purchase the wheat on consignment basis, and wrote a letter agreeing to accept the goods on consignment basis. The Manager of the petitioner-firm, accordingly, informed the District Supply Officer, Begusarai, by his letter dated 30th November, 1990. It appears that the District Supply Officer also directed M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill to deposit the price of Wheat, and accept the goods, failing which it was directed that the wheat may be delivered to M/s. Sultania Enterprises. A copy of the letter of the District Supply Officer is annexed as Annexure 3-A. Despite this letter of the District Supply Officer M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill did not deposit the amount nor did they take any interest in taking the delivery of the goods, but it appear that they had other intentions. According to the petitioners, on an application being made by the Director or M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, the D.S.P. (Food), Darbhanga Camp, Barauni Junction, intervened, and on 3.12.1990 at about 3 P.M. seized the entire sack of wheat from the railway godown. Subsequently, on 4.12.1990 he lodged a First Information Report alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner firm had sent from Delhi 550 bags of wheat under the cover of three bills in the name of M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, but with a view of so the same in black market had negotiated for sale thereof with M/s. Sultania Enterprises. Since the petitioner had no licence in Bihar for storage or sale of wheat, and the storage was more than 500 quintals, i.e., above the storage limit, the petitioner and others have committed an offence u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The matter was still under investigation when the instant not petition was filed. Pursuant to the report regarding seizure, the Collector, Begusarai, initiated a confiscation proceeding being Cr. Misc. Case no. 29190. The matter was still under investigation when the instant not petition was filed. Pursuant to the report regarding seizure, the Collector, Begusarai, initiated a confiscation proceeding being Cr. Misc. Case no. 29190. In the confiscation proceeding the Collector heard the petitioner as well as M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill and M/s. Sultania Enterprises, and ultimately directed release of the wheat in favour of M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill with a condition that the price of the wheat deposited by that firm shall be kept deposited in the treasury. This order was passed on 28.1.1991. The petitioner filed a petition before the Collector, Begusarai, for release of the amount representing the sale proceeds of the wheat in question on their furnishing security, but that was rejected by the Collector by order dated 6.1.1992 with an observation that the final order in the case will be passed only after the disposal of the criminal case pending in the Court of Special Judge, Begusarai. 3. Two main submissions have been urged before me in support of this application. It was firstly contended that on the face of the First Information report, no offence whatsoever was made out. Secondly, it is submitted that the criminal prosecution u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well as the confiscation proceeding u/s. 6A of the Act are illegal, since the same have been initiated on the basis of the report of seizure by an officer not competent to do so. 4. I shall first take up the second submission. Under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, which is an Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, there is a provision for entry, search and seizure etc. Clause 30 of the Unification Order specifically confers powers of entry, search and seizure only upon the officers who have been specifically authorised to do so by the State Government. The list of such officers who have been so authorised does not include the D.S.P. (Food). Relying upon the judgments, Ram Chandra Tiwari V/s. State of Bihar, and in Surendra Pd. V/s. State of Bihar, it was submitted that the initiation of the confiscation proceeding based upon an illegal search and seizure cannot be sustained in law. Similarly, where the search and seizure itself is illegal criminal proceeding based upon such search and seizure is equally illegal. These two judgments do support the case of the petitioner. V/s. State of Bihar, it was submitted that the initiation of the confiscation proceeding based upon an illegal search and seizure cannot be sustained in law. Similarly, where the search and seizure itself is illegal criminal proceeding based upon such search and seizure is equally illegal. These two judgments do support the case of the petitioner. In fact, in the latter decision reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Suresh Pd. And another V/s. State of Bihar and others when if it has been held that a valid seizure was a sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to a Collector for starting a proceeding for confiscation of essential commodities under the Act Having regard to the position in law which appears to be wellsettled, it is difficult to sustain the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner as well as the confiscation proceeding, both under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, because it is not disputed before me that the D.S.P. (Food) was never authorised to search or seize stocks of foodgrains in connection with any offence under the Essential Commodities Act. Obviously, therefore, the search and seizure made by the D.S.P. (Food) was illegal. That being so, the criminal prosecution lodged by him on the basis of such search and seizure must be held to be illegal having regard to the settled legal position. 5. So far as the first submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it is not necessary for me to go into that question in view of the finding recorded by me earlier that the prosecution as well as the confiscation proceeding are illegal. However, I may only notice that nothing was pointed out to me as to how the transaction entered into between the petitioner firm and M/s. Sultania Enterprises constituted breach of any provision of the Essential Commodities Act or of any Order passed under that Act, it is not the case of the prosecution that the dispatch of wheat by the petitioner-firm from Delhi was itself illegal. If that be so, on account of failure of the consignee to receive the goods, the delivery of those goods on consignment basis another trader in Bihar after necessary intimation to the District Supply Officer to my mind does not constitute any offence under the Act or under any Order issued under the Act. If that be so, on account of failure of the consignee to receive the goods, the delivery of those goods on consignment basis another trader in Bihar after necessary intimation to the District Supply Officer to my mind does not constitute any offence under the Act or under any Order issued under the Act. In any event, no such provision was brought to my notice. I further find that in the instant case the District Supply Officer was fully apprised of the fact and he had himself called upon the original consignee to take delivery of the goods within the stipulated period after payment of price, and upon his failure to do so he had intimated that the goods may be delivered to M/s. Sultania Enterprises. One can visualise the difficulties of a trader whose goods are not received by the consignee at a distant station. In such a situation, obviously he has to make an alternative arrangement. In the instant case, that was done after intimating the District Supply Officer, who did not raise any objection whatsoever. In my view, therefore, no offence whatsoever was committed. The allegation in the First Information Report that instead of supplying the goods to M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill the petitioner-firm was trying to sell the wheat to another party with a view to sell the same in black market, is not merely a surmise but proceeds on an erroneous factual assumption. The petitioner did not refuse to supply the goods to M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill, and in fact wanted them to honour the railway receipt. It was only on account of failure of M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mill that the petitioner-firm was compelled to make an alternative arrangement. I find no clement of criminality in the whole transaction. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, and the criminal proceeding arising out of Barauni Rail P.S. Case No.140/90 (G.R. No. 2825/90) pending in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Begusarai is quashed. Similarly the confiscation proceeding being Cr. Misc. Case No. 29/90 pending before the Collector, Begusarai is also quashed. It is consequently directed that the sum of Rs. 1,60,560.00 being the sale proceeds of the wheat in question lying in deposit in the Government Treasury be released in favour of the petitioner.