ORDER Heard Sri Khaleel Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record. 2. Petitioners, being accused in Crime No. 127 of 2005 of Virajpet Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(£), 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, have sought for quashing the proceedings. 3. Case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the complaint is that, petitioners 1 and 3 are the owners of the fair price shops i.e., Ration shops and are entrusted with the work of distribution of essential commodities to the public at large through Public Distribution System. Petitioner 2 is the owner and the driver of the lorry in which 30 bags of essential commodities belonging to Public Distribution System allotted to shops of petitioners -1 and 3 are being transported to Gonikoppa Village for the purpose of selling in the open market. In other words, petitioners 1 and 3 being the owners of the Fair Price Shops, were transporting 30 bags of essential commodities in the lorry of petitioner 2 for the purpose of selling the same in the open market. The police of Virajpet Police Station, intercepted the said lorry bearing Registration No. KA-12/6347 and seized the commodities under the Panchanama. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the police have no jurisdiction or authority to search and seize the essential commodities even if the same belongs to Public Distribution System. He relies upon an order dated 31-8-2001 passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Central Government, wherein, it is stated that the Competent Authority under the said order is the Inspector of the State Government dealing with Food and Civil Supplies. As the Inspector of the State Government dealing with Food and Civil Supplies has not searched or seized the essential commodities, according to the petitioners, the seizure made by the police is wholly without jurisdiction and that therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Per contra, Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor argued in support of the case of the prosecution. 5. Per contra, Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor argued in support of the case of the prosecution. 5. It is true that under the order dated 31st August, 2001 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the authority means an officer not below the rank of an Inspector in the State Government dealing with the Food and Civil Supplies. Thus, on going through the said order, it is clear that the authority as defined under the said order has got the jurisdiction to search and seize the essential commodities if the offence or illegality or irregularity is committed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. But, in this case, the bare reading of complaint would prima facie go to show that petitioners have not only committed the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(f), 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but also have committed the offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC. Petitioners 1 and 3 being the owners of the Fair Price Shop, arc deemed to be the public servants, who are doing the service for and on behalf of the State Government. Petitioner 2 is the agent of petitioners 1 and 3. The State Government by reposing confidence and trust in petitioners 1 and 3 has entrusted the work of distribution of essential commodities to needy and poor people. But, the petitioners 1 and 3 in collusion with petitioner 2 has committed the breach of said trust, with the mala fide intention of selling the essential commodities in open market for making profits and illegal gains in their favour. The said act prima facie appears to be wilful. Thus, prima facie the petitioners have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. In view of the same, though Section 409 of the IPC is not specifically mentioned in the FIR, the substance of the first information reveals that the petitioners prima facie have committed the offence under Section 409 of the IPC which is a cognizable offence. The first information is not an encyclopedia to contain all the particulars and the sections under which the offences are committed. Mere omission to mention any or more penal Sections in FIR would not ipso facto deter the concerned investigation officer to make investigation for the concerned offences. The first information is not an encyclopedia to contain all the particulars and the sections under which the offences are committed. Mere omission to mention any or more penal Sections in FIR would not ipso facto deter the concerned investigation officer to make investigation for the concerned offences. It is always open to the investigating officer to file charge-sheet for different offences, other than and in addition to the offences which are mentioned in the FIR, if ultimately the investigation discloses such offences. Thus the investigation process cannot be scuttled, on that technical score, at this initial stage. If the investigation is stopped at this stage, it may lead to travesty of justice and public policy may suffer. The substance of the allegations found in the first information is relevant and not mere format or the sections, for the purposes of proceeding further with the investigation. In view of the same, there is no bar for the police to investigate into the crime as the first information also discloses cognizable offence under the provision of Indian Penal Code along with the offences under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. The investigation is under progress. In view of the same, I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings at this initial stage. Criminal petition is accordingly rejected.