IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1569 of 2007 SHIV KUMAR SINGH @ CONGRESS SINGH S/O SRI RADHA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE BANSHI, P.S. IMAMGANH, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- FOR THE PETITONER; MR.D.N.TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE; MR.GOPESH KUMAR, A.P.P. -------- 2 10.11.2008 This revision application has been preferred against the order taking cognizance dated 14.11.2007 passed by the Sub0divisinal Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya in Imamganj P.S.case No. 48/06 thereby the cognizance under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Public Distribution System dealer and the date of occurrence is dated 26.12.2006. On that very date of alleged occurrence the amended control order was not in force. It was promulgated on 20.2.2007. Prior to that date, such natures of cases were covered under Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. However, by virtue of Section 31(2) of Unification Order the Public Distribution System Dealers being an agent of the Government were exempted from prosecution. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an unreported recent decision of this Court passed in Cr.Misc.no.46510/07 disposed of on 23.1.2008. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the decision of this Court referred to above. The observation made by the Hon’ble Single Judge in page of the - 2 - aforesaid order makes the matter clear which runs as follows; “Admittedly, by virtue of Clause 31(2) of the Unification Order, Public Distribution System dealers being the agents of the Government were exempted from prosecution. However, this exemption has been superceded by the Amended Control Order whereunder no exemption has been given to the dealer of the Public Distribution System from prosecution. The Amended Control order has been brought through Central Notification and as such it has overriding effect over all previous State Orders and Notification as provided under Clause 14 thereof. However, the Amended Control Order could not be made effective unless licensing provision as provided under Clause-7 thereof was made by the State Government. In Bihar the State Government made an order in terms of the Amended Control Order only on20.2.2007. As such the Amended Control Order was not workable in Bihar till 20.2.2007.” Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as admitted position of law it is quite apparent that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance dated 14.11.2007 is quashed/set aside. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)