JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersely, the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, on 14.4.2009, the police party headed by Ashok Kumar, SHO of Police Station Kotwali Patiala was present at Lakkar Mandi, Sirhandi Bazar Patiala, in connection with patrol duty. He received a secret information that Krishan Chand alias Budhu son of Amar Nath petitioner-accused was supplying the kerosene to other Halwai shops and Dhaba owners at a higher rate, meant for ration card holders. If the raid is conducted, Krishan Chand and Ram Chander Mukhia can be apprehended red handed. Believing the secret information credible, the SHO sent the ruqqa to the Police Station, on the basis of which, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.176 dated 14.4.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the EC Act”) and section 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali Patiala, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 2. Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal prosecution under section 7 of the EC Act, the petitioner preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that as to whether the police has any power to enter, search and seize of the kerosene, subject matter of section 7 of the EC Act, is no more res integra and is now well settled. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in cases Ashwani Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 211] : 2012(3) RCR (Criminal) 384, Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Tina v. State of Punjab 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 222 and Atul Garg son of Janak Raj v. State of Punjab CRM No. M-22032 of 2010, decided on 11.11.2010. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in cases Ashwani Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 211] : 2012(3) RCR (Criminal) 384, Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Tina v. State of Punjab 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 222 and Atul Garg son of Janak Raj v. State of Punjab CRM No. M-22032 of 2010, decided on 11.11.2010. Having interpreted the relevant provisions of the EC Act, it was ruled that “neither the police was competent to search and seize the kerosene from the petitioner nor was empowered to register a case against the accused. Therefore, the entire process of search and seizure was illegal, without jurisdiction, goes to the very root of the case and vitiated the investigation in this respect.” It was also held that this grave illegality and material procedural irregularity entail the consequences for quashing of FIR in this relevant connection. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for parties are idem that the controversy, involved in the present petition is squarely covered and the impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto are liable to be quashed, in view of the law enumerated by this court in the above indicated judgments, which is “mutatis mutandis” applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and the petitioner is discharged from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case. ---------0.B.S.0------------