ORDER The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.1589 of 2014 on the files of the court below registered for the offence under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:- The first petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm namely, Vim Rock Granites Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the employees of the said firm. On 2.5.2014 at about 10 a.m., 87.5 Kg of Nitrate Mixture out of 200 Kg. of explosives, purchased by the petitioner was found not entered in the Stock register. 3. Heard. 4. The petitioners have filed this Crl.M.C. praying for quashing the final report and further proceedings in the above case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offence alleged is a non-cognizable offence and hence, the Police had no power to investigate the case and file the final report and in the said circumstances, the final report and further proceedings cannot be sustained. 6. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act is imprisonment for a term upto to two years or with fine, which may extend upto Rs.3,000/-, or with both. There is nothing in the Explosives Act to indicate that the offence alleged is a cognizable offence or not. Therefore, we will have to go through the 2nd part of Schedule I Cr.P.C., which provides that the offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only are non-cognizable. Therefore, the offence alleged in this case is no doubt, a non-cognizable offence. Section 152 Cr.P.C. provides that no police officer shall investigate the non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having no power to try such case or commit the case for trial. In this case, no order of the Magistrate was obtained as provided under Section 152 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the investigation conducted and final report by the Investigating Officer cannot be said to be legal and correct. Annexure VII is the order passed by the District Collector, which would show that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. It is further stated in Annexure VII order that the omission to enter the stock in the stock register was only an inadvertent omission. In view of the report of the Collector also, no successful prosecution against the petitioners cannot be sustained. It is further stated in Annexure VII order that the omission to enter the stock in the stock register was only an inadvertent omission. In view of the report of the Collector also, no successful prosecution against the petitioners cannot be sustained. In view of the above reasons, I am inclined to quash the final report and further proceedings against the petitioners in the above said case, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed.