Judgment R.N.SAHAY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this case, the search and seizure was made toy the Inspector, C. I. D., Food on 16-1-1991. On the relevant day the Inspector, C. I. D. was not empowered to search business premises of a trader. He was first time authorised by G. S. R. 31, dated 28-7-1992 under Clause 30 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 to search and seizure was made by the person who was not authorised under the Unification order to search and seize, the entire action is null and void and the prosecution lodged on the basis of such report cannot stand. 3. The first case cited, by Shri Agarwal, 1980 Cr LJ NOC 24 (Cal): 1978 (2) Cal LJ 300 (Bimal Ranjan Roy and others v. State of West Bengal) in which Calcutta High Court, held that inspection and seizure by a seize. As the search and seizure was made by a person who was not been designated as Inspector of Fertilizer under Entry 21 render the seizure and inspection illegal and void. The same view has been taken by this Court in 1988 PLJR 623 and 1992 (2) PLJR 669. The seizure in this case, therefore, was illegal if the entire proceeding relating to Jugsalai P. S. Case No. 13/91 (G. R. No. 116/91) pending in the Court of Special Judge, E. C. Act, Jamshedpur is quashed.