ORDER 1. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity). 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.64 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam. He is being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with sections 3(1)(c) and 4(1)(a) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LPG Order' for brevity). 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 20.12.2014 at 4.00 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station, on inspection of the restaurant by name "Homely Meals" run by the petitioner, it was revealed that gas cylinders meant for domestic use were being used by the petitioner for the purpose of cooking. On these allegations, Crime No.1772 of 2014 was registered. Later, investigation was conducted and the final report was laid by the same officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Inspector of Police who has detected the offence and laid the final report is not an authorised officer. It is contended that as per Rule13 (1) of the LPG Order, only an officer not below the rank of Inspector duly authorised by a general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government is empowered to conduct search. Violation of the said provision is fatal according to the learned counsel. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in Abdul Hameed v. Station House Officer, Cherpulassery Police Station, 2013 (2) KHC 386 and also an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.6492 of 2015 dated 15.10.2015 to advance his contention. 5. It is also submitted that the final report will not reveal that the petitioner had violated rule 4(1) of the LPG Order as the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has filled any cylinder with liquefied petroleum gas or transferred liquefied petroleum gas from one cylinder to another or from container to the other. 6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. 7. 6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor would refer to section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and would contend that offense under the Act is cognizable and therefore nothing prevents the Sub Inspector of Police from seizing the vehicle in accordance with law. Rule 13 of the LPG Order confers powers only on certain authorised officers to stop and search any vessel, enter and search any place and also to seize stocks of the Liquefied petroleum gas along with the container or other equipments. The Sales Officer of a Government Oil Company is also empowered under the said rule to secure compliance with the order. 8. As pointed out by the learned counsel, this Court in the decision of Abdul Hameed V SHO, Cheruplasserry Police Station, 2013 (2) KHC 386 and also in the unreported decision in Crl.M.C. No.6492 of 2015 dated 15.10.2015 have taken the view that search conducted and FIR registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, who is not an authorized officer under the said order cannot be sustained. 9. A Division bench of the Patna High Court in Ram Chandra Pan Sari v. State of Bihar (LAWS (PAT) 1987-3-48) had occasion to observe that though the offense under section 10 A of the Essential Commodities Act are cognizable, and though any police officer can start investigation on that account under section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on getting knowledge that an offence has been committed, the said process cannot not be started on the basis of an illegal search or seizure. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.64 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam are quashed.