JUDGMENT :- By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants seek to quash the FIR in Crime No.3042/2003 of Police Station, Murtijapur and the Charge-sheet No.62/2003 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtijapur. 2. Applicant No.1 is the father of Applicant No.2. They are dealing in transport business in the name and style as "Deep Roadlines". They owned Truck No.CG-04-ZC6910 and CG-04-ZC-4610. Manoj Gulabrao Dongre and Ganesh Uttamrao Gawahane were the drivers on those trucks. On 22-4-2003 they were carrying goods by the said trucks. When the trucks reached within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Murtijapur, PSI Roy (Non-applicant No.4) stopped the trucks and seized them by alleging that blue kerosene was being used as fuel for those trucks. Both the drivers were arrested and an offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the drivers as well as the owners (namely the applicants). When the applicants learnt about the seizure of the trucks and arrest of their drivers they moved the concerned Magistrate for release of the trucks on their suprutnama, but the applications are rejected. 3. The applicants challenged the said action on the ground that the trucks were illegally detained by PSI Roy as his unwarranted demand of Rs.3,000/- was not fulfilled; that no infringement of any specific order under Essential Commodities Act has been alleged; that the procedure for taking sample of the diesel from the diesel tank of the trucks was not followed by PSI Roy; that PSI Roy was not empowered to conduct investigation into the alleged crime and that the entire action including search, seizure and prosecution is illegal and is vitiated. The applicants have, therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet against them. 4. I have heard Shri. J. M. Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri. S.S. Doifode, APP, for the non-applicants/State. 5. Shri. J. M. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the applicants, pointed out that the charge-sheet discloses that an offence under Section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been committed by the applicants. However, neither the charge-sheet nor the documents filed with it disclose as to which order was violated by the applicants so as to attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In such situation, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. However, neither the charge-sheet nor the documents filed with it disclose as to which order was violated by the applicants so as to attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In such situation, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. In support of this submission the learned counsel for the applicants relied on Kallol Kumar Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 1995 Cri.L.J. 654 (Cal.), wherein the charge-sheet was held to be liable to be quashed when neither in FIR nor in chargesheet it is disclosed as to what order was violated so as to attract the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Shri. Gandhi further urged that it is a case of no evidence. He submitted that the charge-sheet and the documents filed with it do not disclose the source of kerosene. Shri. Gandhi submitted that under Rule 3 of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the kerosene alleged to have been misused was supplied under the public distribution system. No evidence was collected by the prosecution in this respect and hence there is no material to book the applicants for any offence. 7. It would be worthwhile to refer to Rule 3(1) of the said Order. It provides as under: “3(1) No person shall use kerosene supplied under the public distribution system for any purpose other than cooking and illumination." 8. It is thus obvious that in order to bring home the guilt under Rule 3, the prosecution has to allege and prove, apart from misuse of the kerosene, that the kerosene was supplied under the public distribution system. 9. Shri. S. S. Doifode, learned APP appearing on behalf of the non-applicants/State, urged that the kerosene which was being misused was of blue colour which indicates that it was supplied under the public distribution system. However, the learned APP could not point out any document to show that blue kerosene is meant for supply under the public distribution system. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to hold that the kerosene seized from the applicants was supplied under the public distribution system so as to attract the provisions of the Rule 3(1) of the said Order. 10. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to hold that the kerosene seized from the applicants was supplied under the public distribution system so as to attract the provisions of the Rule 3(1) of the said Order. 10. Shri. Gandhi further pointed out that the seizure was carried out by PSI Roy, who was not authorised to make seizure. In this respect, Shri. Gandhi pointed out that Notification dated 7-7-1994 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi in pursuance of sub-clause (c) of clause 7 of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use of Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 whereunder all the police officers not below the rank of Inspector have been authorised to take necessary action under the provisions of the said order within their respective jurisdiction. It may be noted that Rule 9 of the said Order provides that the Central Government may by Notification authorize any officer to take action under the said Order. As pointed out above, the Notification dated 7-7-1994 authorizes the Police Officers not below the rank of Inspectors. The Investigating Officer in the present case Mr. Roy is Police Sub-Inspector and as such he was not authorized to take action under the Order. Thus, the seizure was carried out by an unauthorized officer on the basis of which FIR was registered and charge-sheet was filed. The same is inherently illegal and cannot form the basis of prosecution. In this respect, Shri. Gandhi relied on Roy V. D. Vs. State of Kerala, 2000(4) Crimes 196 (SC) : 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 163 (S.C.), wherein it is held as under : "Where criminal proceedings are initiated based on illicit material collected on search and arrest which are per se illegal and vitiate not only a conviction and sentence based on such material but also the trial itself, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the process of the court; in such a case not quashing the proceedings would perpetuate abuse of the process of the court resulting in great hardship and injustice to the accused." 11. Shri. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the applicants, also relied on Laxmikant Shankarlal Sarda Vs. Shri. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the applicants, also relied on Laxmikant Shankarlal Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 471 : 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2330, in which it was held that the seizure and investigation by PSI was not legal, he being an officer below the rank of Police Inspector. 12. Considering the above submissions and the material on record I am satisfied that the FIR as well as the prosecution against the applicants cannot be sustained and permitting the prosecution to continue would be nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.3042/2003 as well as Chargesheet No.62/2003, so far as they relate to the applicants, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.