Judgment R.N.SAHAY, J. 1. This is a motion to quash the seizure of coal by respondent No. 2, Shri J. S. Negi, Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, in connection with Gobindpur, P. S. No. 32 of 1993, dated 20-1-1993. It appears that on 20-1-1993, the Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force (respondent No. 2) conducted a raid with other members of the Central Industrial Security Force personnel in the depot of the petitioner and seized 225 tonnes of soft coke and 80 tonnes of stem coal (Annexure-1). 2. The petitioner is a licensee under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, bearing licence No. 5/GND/1990 which is valid upto date. The case of the petitioner is that he is the lawful owner of the coal and his ownership is supported by documents. The coal was purchased from M/s. Trimurti Coal Company, Govindpur, Dhanbad. The petitioner has annexed one cash memo with regard to the purchase as Annexure-3 to this application. The petitioner, had also purchased coal from Durga Enterprises, P. O. Jamadoba, Dhanbad who in turn had purchased it from Dugdha Coal Washery of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. By a notification dated 21st April, 1992, the State of Bihar has lifted the control on coal and after the aforesaid notification no licence is required for transaction in coal. A case was registered against the petitioner on the report of the respondent No. 2 under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending investigation. 3. The main question is for consideration is as to whether respondent No. 2, who is Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, was empowered under any provision of the law to seize the coal from the depot of the petitioner oni suspicion that it was stolen property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 and submitted that under Clause 14 of the said order, only District Supply Officer, District Supply Inspector, Supply Inspector or any Police Officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police have been vested with the power of search and seizure if there is reason ground to believe that if any of the provisions of control order has been violated. In our opinion as the seizure was not made under the provision of Bihar Control Order, 1956 any reference to the said order is not relevant on the purpose of the case. 4. By Section 3 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 it is enacted that there shall be constituted and maintained by the Central Government an armed force of the Union to be called the Central Industrial Security Force for the better protection and Security of Industrial undertakings owned by the Government. 5. Section 4 of the said Act provides for appointment of one Director General of the Force and other persons to be Inspector-General, Deputy Inspector-General, Commandants, Deputy Commandants or Assistant Commandants of the Force. 6. Section 10 of the said Act lays down the duties of every members of the Force. The main function of the force is to protect and safeguard the industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government and such other installations and as specified by the Government to be vital for the carrying on of the work in those undertakings. 7. Section 11 of the said Act provides as follows : "Power to arrest without warrant. The main function of the force is to protect and safeguard the industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government and such other installations and as specified by the Government to be vital for the carrying on of the work in those undertakings. 7. Section 11 of the said Act provides as follows : "Power to arrest without warrant. (1) Any member of the Force may, without any order from a Magistrate and without a Warrant, arrest (i) any person who voluntarily causes hurt to, or attempts voluntarily to cause hurt to, or wrongfully restrains or attempts wrongfully to restrain or assaults, threatens to assault, or uses, or threatens or attempts to use criminal force to any employee, referred to in clause (d) of Section 10, or to him or any other member of the Force, in discharge of his duty as such employee or in execution of his duty as such member, as the case may be, or with, intent to prevent or to deter him from discharging his duty as such member, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member ; or (ii) any person who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable suspicion, exists of his having been concerned in, or who is found taking precautions to conceal his presence under circumstances which afford reason to believe that he is taking such precautions with a view to committing, a cognizable offence which relates to property belonging to, or in the premises of, any industrial undertaking referred to in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 10, or relates to the other installations, or to property in the premises, in the premises of the other installations, referred to in those clauses ; or (iii) any person who commits or attempts to commit a cognizable offence which involves or which is likely to involve danger to the life of any person engaged in carrying on any work relating to any undertakings or installations referred to in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 10. (2) If any person is found trespassing on the premises of any industrial undertaking referred to in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 10, he may, without prejudice to any other proceedings which may be taken against him, be removed from such premises by any member of the Force." 8. (2) If any person is found trespassing on the premises of any industrial undertaking referred to in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 10, he may, without prejudice to any other proceedings which may be taken against him, be removed from such premises by any member of the Force." 8. Section 12 of the said Act provides as follows : "(1) Whenever any member of the Force, not below the prescribed rank, has reason to believe that any such offence as is referred to in Section 11 has been or is being committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of es aping or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may detain the offender and search his person and belonging forthwith and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed the offence. (2) The provisions of the (Code of Criminal Procedure) relating to searches under that Code shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this section." 9. Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class to authorise any police officer above the rank of a constable to search any place suspected to contain stolen property. 10. Section 100 of the said Code provides that whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of such place shall, on demand by the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein. Respondent No. 2 had not obtained any warrant under Section 94 for search of the coal depot of the petitioner. 11. Section 102 of the said Code empowers any police officer to seize certain property which may be found under the circumstances which creates suspicion of commission of any offence. This secton gives wide power to the police officer with regard to the seizure of property alleged or suspected to be stolen property. 11. Section 102 of the said Code empowers any police officer to seize certain property which may be found under the circumstances which creates suspicion of commission of any offence. This secton gives wide power to the police officer with regard to the seizure of property alleged or suspected to be stolen property. But when the property is neither suspected to be stolen nor found under circumstances creating suspicion of an offence having been committed, the police officer has no right to seize the property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Proceedure (Dolasana AIR 1971 Mani 39). Any property found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence can be seized by the police officer under this section. In AIR 1968 Mani 25, it has been held that a police officer can seize the property under this section only in cases he has power to investigate offences under this Code or under any other law. 12. It is obvious from combined reading of Sections 11 and 12 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act is in pari materia with Section 12 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. In Balkishan A. Devidayl v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cr LJ 1424, the Hon ble Supreme Court had occasion! to consider the relevant provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 relating to search and seizure. It was held by the Supreme Court that primary object of constituting the Railway Protection Force is to secure better Protection and Security of the Railway property. The restricted power of arrest and search given to the officers or member of the Force is incidental to the efficient discharge of their basis duty to protect and safeguard Railway property. No general power to investigate all cognizable offence relating to Railway property under the Criminal Procedure Code has been conferred on any superior officer or member of the force by the 1957 Act. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was considering the question whether confession made to a member the Railway Protection Force was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act or not. It was held that confession was admissible because the power of officer of the force conferred with powers of police officer conducting investigation under the Code. He has not power to initiate prosecution or filing charge-sheet which has been held clinching attribute of a police officer. 13. It was held that confession was admissible because the power of officer of the force conferred with powers of police officer conducting investigation under the Code. He has not power to initiate prosecution or filing charge-sheet which has been held clinching attribute of a police officer. 13. The Central Industrial Security Force Act also empowers arrest and search restricted to a situations engrafted in Section 11 of the Act and there is no power to investigate all. cognizable offences. 14. The search and seizure, therefore, to be legal must come within the ambit of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. In the instant case, the seizure was not made inside any installation but at a place on the G. T. Road which the petitioner claims to be his coal depot. The search and seizure, therefore, was clearly beyond the ambit of the Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1993 BLJR 108 where it was held that Central Industrial Security Force has no power of search and seizure. This decision was rendered without considering any provision of the Central Industrial Security Force Act and on concession by the Counsel of the State Government. 15. In the result we hold that seizure of coal by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force was illegal and without jurisdiction and must be quashed. We direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the coal in favour of the petitioner on furnishing security to his satisfaction of and on being satisfied that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the coal and there is no other claimant. The petitioner has not moved for quashing of the investigation and in our opinion investigation cannot be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.