Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Raj Narain alias Kuka has filed the present revisional petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the order dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure P-1), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the petitioner-accused has been charge sheeted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the) in FIR No. 17 dated 8.2.1998 for prima facie contravening the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Lubricating Oils and Greases (Processing, supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987 (hereinafter referred as the Order 1987) framed under Section 3 of the.

2. In this case, FRI No. 17 dated 8.2.1998 was registered against the petitioner-accused under Section 7 of theand 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Mansa by the police on the basis of the secret information alleging that the petitioner-accused was manufacturing spurious mobile oil with packing of reputed companies and selling the same. Some quantity of alleged adulterated mobile oil, black oil and empty containers were recovered from his business premises. As per the notice of charge sheet, the petitioner-accused was found carrying on the business of processing and selling the lubricated mobile oil without obtaining valid licence from the competent authority and thus has contravened the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order 1987 framed under Section 3 of the.

3. Shri K.K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioner have been vitiated and the aforesaid charge (SIC) investigation of this case was done by the inspector, who was not competent to effect search, seizure and entry in the business premises of the petitioner as per the provisions of Clause 8(1) of the Order 1987. He further submitted that as per the Public Analyst report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2), sample of the mobile oil taken from the possession of the petitioner was not found adulterated and was found tallying with the specification of mobile oil as per ISI standard. He further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner-accused is that he was found selling the mobile oil when the term of his license had expired. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court dated 21.11.2001 passed in Crl.Revision No. 447 of 2000, titled as Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab.

4. On the other hand, Shri Sukant Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the learned trial court has rightly charge sheeted the petitioner-accused under Section 7 of theas he was prima facie found to have violated Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order 1987.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I find force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the raid was conducted by Sub Inspector Jalaur Singh accompanied by ASI Roshan Lal and the alleged adulterated mobile oil was taken from the possession of the petitioner. As per Clause 8 of Order 1987, he was not competent to enter into and search the premises of the petitioner-accused and seize the adulterated mobile oil as only a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector or any other officer of Government of rank equivalent or higher thereto, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government can exercise such power. Clause 8 of the Order 1987 is re-produced as under:

"8. Power of entry search and seizure:-

(1) Any police officer not below the rank of an Inspector or any other officer of Government of rank equivalent or higher thereto, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfying himself that this order or any order made thereunder has been complied with.

(a) enter and search any place, premises, vessel or vehicle which the officer has reason to believe, has been, or is about to be, used for the contravention of this order.

(b) Seize.

i. stocks of lubricating oils, greases and processing equipments.

ii. any package, covering or receptacle in which lubricating oil and grease are found, and

iii. any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying lubricating oils and grease, which the officer has reason to believe has been or is being, or is about to be, used for the contravention of this order;

(c) send samples of any lubricating oil or grease seized under sub paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) to any of the laboratories mentioned in Schedule II appended to this Order, for analysis with a view to knowing the nature and extent of adulteration.

(2) The provision of Section 100 of the Code Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, as far as may, apply to searches and seizures (SIC) this Order."

6. The provision of the aforesaid Order is very clear. An officer not below the rank of Inspector or any other officer of Government of rank equivalent or higher thereto, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government, is competent to enter and search and place or premises, vessel or vehicle which the officer has reason to believe that he has been or is about to be used for contravention of the abovesaid order and can seize the stocks of lubricating oils, greases and processing equipments. In the similar circumstances and on the same allegations, this Court has quashed the charge sheet in Crl.Revision No. 447 of 2000, decided on 21.11.2001 (supra). Similarly, in Harpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1991 (3) RCR 307 this Court has quashed the charge sheet in the similar circumstances. Learned counsel for the State could not point out as to how the Sub Inspector and ASI were competent to conduct the raid and seize the lubricating oils. It is not the case of the State that the Sub Inspector of the Police was authorised to conduct the raid under the aforesaid Order.

7. Further, as per the report of the Analyst of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, the mobile oil recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused was not found to be adulterated. Learned trial court has observed that though the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh has found the sample of the mobile oil taken from the possession of the petitioner as not adulterated, but subsequently the Police sent some of the samples to the Castrol India Limited Quality Control Laboratory, Ballabgarh, which indicate that the alleged mobile oil was not conforming their standard. In my opinion, the learned trial court has wrongly laced reliance upon this report, when the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh was very much available on the record. In view of these factors, there is no prima facie material against the petitioner-accused, on the basis of which charge could have been framed against him.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure P-1), vide which charge against the petitioner has been framed, is set aside.