Judgment 1. The respondent Sub-divisional Officer has appeared in person pursuant to our order dated 7-1-1994 and has filed counter-affidavit. He admits that he had authorised respondent No. 2 to enter upon the premises of the petitioner and effect seizures of documents and goods as evidenced by Annexure-1. When we called upon him to justify his authority in granting authorisation in a favour of respondent No. 2 with reference to any statutory provision, he has sought to rely on Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is wholly misconceived. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioner was in any way using the premises for deposit or sale of stolen properties. 2. Mr. Eqbal, learned Government Advocate, on instruction from the S. D. O. states that some telephonic message from some unknown person was received that the coal of the petitioner using as raw material has been stolen. Accordingly, the enquiry was made by the S. D. O. Moreover, under Section 94 of the Cr. P. C. if the conditions precedent are satisfied then he can authorise only a Police Officer by issuance of a search warrant in this case. He has merely issued a letter of authorisation in favour of respondent No. 2, who is admittedly not a Police Officer. To say the least the S. D. O. has out and out acted mala fide and illegally possibly either he has no regard for law or he is absolutely ignorant about the legal provisions. The industry of the petitioner which is being run on loan by the financial instituton has been made to suffer irreparable loss because of the seizure and institution of a criminal case since the factory is lying closed since 15-10-1993 for no fault of theirs. 3. We have recorded out order dated 7-1-1994 that all the allegations made in the First Information Report are wholly misconceived and even if the facts stated in the First Information Report are accepted on their face value, still the institution of the present prosecution is not maintainable in law. It is also clear that it was only after the aforesaid illegal seizure that the First Information Report (Annexure-1) was lodged on 16-10-1993 giving rise to Goddi P. S. Case No. 70 (IC) 93. 4. It is also clear that it was only after the aforesaid illegal seizure that the First Information Report (Annexure-1) was lodged on 16-10-1993 giving rise to Goddi P. S. Case No. 70 (IC) 93. 4. In the above view of the matter, we quash the entire prosecution commenced pursuant to the said First Information Report as also the seizure as evidenced by the seizure list appended to the F.I.R. The writ application is thus allowed. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer is directed to see that within three days from today all the seized documents should be handed over to the petitioner.