MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS batch of four petitions under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. is being disposed off by this common order since their disposal depends upon identical points raised herein. ( 3 ) THESE petitions are directed against the prosecution of the respective petitioners by the respondent-police for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC on the charge that, on the respective dates and time mentioned In the respective FIR, sent to the Court below, they were found to have had transported the sand loads in their respective lorries in violation of the order dated 18-1-2000 promulgated by the Taluk executive Magistrate of Malavalli Taluk in Mandya District, purported to be under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. prohibiting the transportation of sand loads from the places and along the routes mentioned therein, ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that each of the petitioners herein was issued the permit under Rule 21-A{1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1994, by the Competent Authority to transport the sand from the places mentioned therein. The copies of their said permits are produced by each of the petitioners along with their petitions. ( 5 ) ON the requisition of the Mines and Geology Department (Minor section), Mandya, an order was promulgated by the said Taluk Executive magistrate under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. prohibiting the transportation of the sand from the said places and along the routes mentioned therein, for the period from 18-1-2000 to 2-2-2001. Again at the instance of the Mines and Geology Department, the Taluk Executive magistrate promulgated one more order extending the said ban period up to 18-2-2001 till 6. 00 p. m. The respective criminal cases were booked against the petitioners by the respondent-police alleging that the petitioners' trucks were engaged in transportation of the sand from the said place along the prohibited routes during the said ban period and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC. ( 6 ) IT was rightly argued by Mr. Shams A. Pathan, learned Counsel for petitioner, that the said order which is of the Taluk Executive Magistrate under Section 144 of the Cr. ( 6 ) IT was rightly argued by Mr. Shams A. Pathan, learned Counsel for petitioner, that the said order which is of the Taluk Executive Magistrate under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. , having been admittedly not been served on any of the petitioners or not shown to have been notified by proclamation or published in such a manner by the State Government as prescribed by it in compliance with the directives contained in Section 134 of the Cr. P. C. , petitioners cannot be held bound by that order of the taluk Executive Magistrate. Sub-section (1) of Section 144 contemplates that any order promulgated therein by the competent Executive Magistrate shall have to be served in the manner provided under Section 134 of the Cr. P. C. on the effective person. If the service of the order on the individual person as envisaged in Section 134 of the Cr. P. C. is found to be impracticable or not desirable in view of urgency of the matter, then it shall have to be notified in the manner laid down by sub-section (2) of section 134 of the Cr. P. C. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said order of the Taluk Executive Magistrate was served on the petitioners or for that matter had been got published or proclaimed in the manner provided by Section 134 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, in the absence of compliance with the directives under Section 134 of the Cr. P. C. to make the said order of the Taluk Executive Magistrate legally effective, the respondent-police will not get the authority to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences. ( 7 ) APART from the above legal infirmity with which the said order of the Taluk Executive Magistrate suffers, it is also found vitiated for want of authority to promulgate that order under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. sub-section (1) thereof states that any Executive Magistrate other than the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate requires to be specially empowered by the State Government conferring express powers on him to promulgate any order contemplated by Section 144 of the cr. P. C. As indicated, the said order in question had been issued by the taluk Executive Magistrate of Malavalli Taluk. P. C. As indicated, the said order in question had been issued by the taluk Executive Magistrate of Malavalli Taluk. It is not the case of the prosecution that he was specially empowered by the State Government to act under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. In that view of the legal position, evidently the aforestated orders purported to have been issued under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. are without authority and jurisdiction and they are nullity in the eye of law. The respondent-police do not get any jurisdiction to prosecute any person for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC on such a null and void order of Taluk Executive Magistrate. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, for the reasons aforestated, all these petitions are allowed and the prosecution of each of the petitioners herein in respective crime Nos. 13, 14,15 and 16 of 2001, is quashed. ( 9 ) IT is further ordered that the learned Trial Magistrate shall release the respective load of sand to the respective petitioners which was stated to have been seized by the police on registration of the case, if the same is not yet released. --- *** --- .