ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2009 at about 14.45 hrs, in Melur to Alagarkovil Road, Pallavarayanpatti, near thatched shed of A1/Sheik Meeran, a load van bearing Registration No. TN 69 B 6042 was found in possession of 80 chippams of PDS boiled rice and then, on the western side of the thatched shed room another 310 chippams of boiled PDS rice and further on the eastern side thatched shed room another 900 chippams of boiled PDS rice were seized. All the above said stated PDS rice bags were seized in the presence of Revenue Officials. 3. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the certificate issued by the quality inspector cannot be the basis for the prosecution, as the same does not have any legal effect. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation made against the petitioners does not make out any offence, as there is no material to show that the rice seized was purchased from the ration card holders. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7055 of 2016, dated 19.07.2016 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7630 of 2015, dated 16.07.2015. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the seized rice from the accused have been meant for distribution under Public Distribution System and seizure has been made in the presence of the revenue officials. Further, he reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that all would go to establish the involvement of all the accused in this case. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and also perused the typed set of papers. 6. This Court in a catena of decisions held that one cannot be prosecuted for smuggling rice meant for PDS solely on the basis of a certificate issued by a Quality Inspector stating that the rice seized from the accused was PDS rice. 6. This Court in a catena of decisions held that one cannot be prosecuted for smuggling rice meant for PDS solely on the basis of a certificate issued by a Quality Inspector stating that the rice seized from the accused was PDS rice. In the case on hand, it has been stated by the Quality Inspector that from the composition of the rice, which was taken up for analysis, he came to know that the rice is meant for Public Distribution System. In the absence of materials to show that rice under examination was purchased from card holders, this material that it is a PDS rice, has no evidentiary value. 7. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to look into the provisions of Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.Clause 6(4) relates to supply of Scheduled Commodities, as per which no person shall purchase any scheduled commodities obtained on a family card. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relates to penalties. A bare reading of Clause 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, clearly indicates that for maintaining the prosecution against the accused (who is stated to be seller), there should be have been materials to show (a) the purchase of the scheduled commodities;(b) that purchased from a ration card holder. The existence of these two conditions is not disjunctive but conjunctive. In other words, both the conditions must exists together. 8. In the case on hand, there is not even an iota of material to show that the petitioners had purchased the contraband from the family card holders. Not even a single statement from any of the witnesses that either they are the card holders or that they sold the rice distributed to them under the card. From the above, the entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.39 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, are liable to be quashed. 9. Moreover, this Court in similar set of circumstances and identical facts, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7055 of 2016, vide order dated 19.07.2016 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1540 of 2010, vide order dated 23.04.2016, proceedings taken against the petitioners therein under Sections 6(4) of TNCS (RDCS) Order, r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act were ordered to be quashed. 9. Moreover, this Court in similar set of circumstances and identical facts, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7055 of 2016, vide order dated 19.07.2016 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1540 of 2010, vide order dated 23.04.2016, proceedings taken against the petitioners therein under Sections 6(4) of TNCS (RDCS) Order, r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act were ordered to be quashed. The said decisions squarely apply to the facts of this case also. 10. Under the above-said circumstances, the proceedings, in C.C.No.39 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, against the petitioners are quashed. The criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.