ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Laxmi Murmu, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 4733 of 2012, including the order dated 17.11.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 414, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 7 of the Essential Commodity Act. 3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that an Auto Rickshaw who was intercepted carrying 38 bags of rice which was seized on the suspicion that the petitioner along with the other accused persons had indulged in selling rice in black market though it was meant for distribution under the PDS Scheme. Based on the aforesaid allegation Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted, pursuant to which cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 17.11.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the control orders have been repealed by the Central Government vide its order dated 31.08.2001 and the Public distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has come into existence. It has been submitted that the State Government had not issued any order under Section 3 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and therefore the PDS Dealers even if they indulged in illegal and irregular activities with respect to matter of distribution of essential commodities to the beneficiaries cannot be prosecuted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no person has been authorized at the time when the First Information Report was instituted with respect to the power of search and seizure in terms of Clause 10 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and in such circumstances the said search and seizure being illegal, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 293 of 2013 with respect to another accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 293 of 2013 with respect to another accused. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner but has accepted the fact that the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing to that of the co-accused Bishnu Agarwal in whose case the entire proceeding has already been quashed in Cr. M.P. No. 293 of 2013. 6. It appears that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has earlier been considered by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 293 of 2013 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “It be further stated that the issue, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, has been decided in a case of Aloke Dutta Vs. State of Jharkhand (Cr.M.P. No. 56 of 2012) wherein it has been held that the provision relating to the dealer under the Public Distribution system (Control) Order, 2001 would amount to be repealed by virtue of the provision as contained in clause 14 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Further, it has been held that the person, who would be notified to be competent in terms of Clause 10 of the said Order, can effect search and seizure. Here in the instant case as stated above, only in the month of August, 2013 the State Government has come forward with the notification issued under Clause 10 of the said Order, whereas the case has been lodged in the month of December, 2013 and therefore, in absence of notification being made under Clause 10 of the said Order on the day when search was effected, the person, who effected search, cannot be said to be authorized to make search and seizure and consequently entire prosecution based on such search and seizure would be vitiated.” 7. Therefore, it had been concluded that since no person was authorized or delegated the power to conduct search and seizure in terms of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, the search and seizure itself having been invalidated by such non-authorization the continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. 8. Since in similar circumstances the case of the co-accused Bishnu Agarwal has already been quashed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 293 of 2013 and taking a cue from the judgment referred to above, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 4733 of 2012, including the order dated 17.11.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 414, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 7 of the Essential Commodity Act is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. This application is allowed.