JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - State of Haryana has filed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 4.8.1994 passed by the Special Judge, Panipat, whereby Ram Niwas respondent had been discharged. 2. A case bearing FIR No. 561 dated 10.10.1993 was registered against the respondent under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for selling 5 litres of kerosene oil in black market and also keeping in his possession 80 litres of kerosene oil without any permit or licence in the area of Panipat. On 10.10.1993, ASI Ranjit Kumar received a secret information to the effect that the present respondent is selling kerosene oil in his factory known as Kamal Fabrics situated at Sanoli Road, Panipat. He immediately constituted a reading party consisting of Subhash Chander Inspector, Civil Supplies, Panipat, Ramesh Kumar, Subhash Chander son of Hazari Lal and other police officials. In fact, Subhash Chander son of Hazari Lal was made a bogus punter in this case. He was given three initialled currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and was directed to visit the premises of the respondent and to purchase kerosene oil from him. He was given further directions to signal the police party so that the respondent could be apprehended while selling the kerosene oil. It was done in the same manner and ultimately the respondent was apprehended along with kerosene oil. The initialled currency notes were also recovered from him along with other amount which he was having with him. 3. The respondent had earned discharge on the ground that the Inspector, Food and Supplies Department was not competent to enter, search and seize the articles from him as such powers vested only with the officer of the Food and Supplies Department not below the rank of Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. 4. I have heard learned Mr. Bijender Dhankar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. R.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent at length. I have also gone through the entire record. 5. 4. I have heard learned Mr. Bijender Dhankar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. R.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent at length. I have also gone through the entire record. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgement rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 457, in which it has been observed that under the Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order 1976 Clause 11, the power to search and enter the premises is only with the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer and the Inspector who is below the rank of Assistant Food and Supplies Officer is not competent to enter, search and seize the goods. In Ashok Kumars case (supra), the proceedings against the accused on this short point were quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Arvind Katoch v. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 608 and Raj Narain alias Kuka v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 88, in which on the point of competence of search being conducted by a particular official was discussed and the proceedings were quashed. 6. Learned State counsel has not been able to know any ruling contrary to law already laid down in Ashok Kumars case (supra), Arvind Katochs case (supra) and Raj Narain alias Kukas case (supra). 7. As a sequel to the above said discussion, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order whereby the respondent had been discharged. Consequently, the present revision petition filed by the State of Haryana is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.