IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.32165 of 2007 RAJENDER RISHIDEO S/O late Darogi Rishideo, R/o Village- Lalkuria, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Shamim Kausher S/o Md. Ebrar Raushan, R/o village- Lalkuria, P.S.- Kumarkhand, Distt.- Madhepura. . . . . . Opp. Parties. For the Petitioner: M/s Mahendra Pathak, Nagendra Upadhyay, Advocates For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the Opp. Party: None ----------- 5/ 09.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed this application against order dated 07.08.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in G.R. No. 603 of 2005, by which charge has been framed under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Allegation is that the petitioner, who is Fair Price Shop dealer, supplied 200 litres of Kerosene Oil to other named accused persons for selling the same in the black market. The petitioner states that Fair Price Shop dealer is an agent of the State Government and as such he is saved by Clause 31 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. Clause 31 deals with exemptions: (1) The State Government may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions or restriction as may be specified in such order, exempt any person or class of persons, or firm or association of persons or any co-operative society - 2 - from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Order and may at any time suspend or rescind such exemption. Sub-Section (2) of Clause 31 states that Nothing in this Order shall apply to purchase, sale or storage for sale of trade articles by or on behalf of- (i) the Central Government; or (ii) the State Government; or (iii) the officers, departments, institution or other organizations of the State Government or such agencies as may be approved by the State Government. The main argument of petitioner is that P.D.S. dealer is an agent of the State Government and as such, he is exempted from any prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Trilok Chand Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 401. This court in the case of Ramanand Prasad Vs. State reported in 2007(4) BBCJ V-211 after noticing the relevant provisions has extensively dealt with this issue and has held that P.D.S. dealer is not an agent of the State Government under Clause 31(2) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unifiction) Order, 1984 and as such not saved from prosecution. Thus, I am not inclined to quash the order dated 07.08.2006, framing charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Kumarkhand P.S. case no. 84 of 2005 (G.R. No. 603 of 2005) on the aforesaid point. Further the allegations contained in prosecution case - 3 - do make out a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)