IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3824 of 2008 BIRENDRA PRASAD KESHARI , Son of Late Parmeshwar Sah Keshari, resident of Village-Lalganj, P.S. Ayar, Distt-Bhojpur --------------------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------- Opp.Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Law Kush Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ------- O R D E R This application at the instance of the sole F.I.R. named accused of Jagdishpur P.S. Case no.201 of 2006, a dealer under the Public Distribution System, is for the quashing of the order dated 21.12.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”) against the petitioner. The prosecution case is based on the written report dated 23.8.2006 of the Block Development Officer, Garhani, wherein it was stated inter alia, that earlier that day at about 12.30 P.M. while he was proceeding to Garhani Block Office from Jagdishpur Block Office through Baliganj Lalganj Road, his jeep was signalled by a person to stop and he complained of not receiving any of the articles under the Antodaya Yojna Programme from the shop of the petitioner. It is said that on the basis thereof a raid was conducted in the shop premises of the petitioner and stock register, the distribution (sale) register of Antyodaya Yojna and the yellow cards of consumers were examined. - 2 - Several consumers were present at the relevant time. From examination of card nos.171114 and 171737 it transpired that they had received items till June, 2006. The stock register indicated that till 6.7.2006, 112 kgs of wheat and 168 kgs of rice had been sold whereas the other items indicated nil distribution. Foodgrains under the Antodaya Yojna were found to have been distributed to all the cardholders except two who had received the items till 4.1.2006 and 6.8.2006 . On this account a presumptive opinion was formed that foodgrains under the Antodaya Yojna were being sold in the blackmarket by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and handed over to the police. Assailing the impugned order, the petitioner has claimed , by his virtue of being a dealer under the Public Distribution System , protection from prosecution by virtue of clause 31(2)(c) of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licenses Unification ) Order,1984. The point in issue is no more res integra in view of a catena of decisions of this Court wherein it has been observed in categoric terms that the dealer under the Public Distribution System, being an agent of the Government cannot be prosecuted in view of the provisions of Section 31(2) (c) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The first information report does not disclose as to which of the orders made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act had been violated. Section 7 of the E.C.Act deals with the person who contravenes any Order made under - 3 - Section 3 of the E.C. Act but if there is no violation or contravention of any Order then no criminal case can be launched against that person. Due regard being had to the discussions made above, the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 16th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.