IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4423 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD, S/O Late Ramdas Sah, residentof Gola Road, Muzaffarpur, P.S. Town, District- Muzaffarpur………Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar………………………………………Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nirbhay Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 14.5.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.6.2002/1.7.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (East), Muzaffarpur in relation to Trial No. 241 of 2009 which arises out of Town P.S. Case No. 331 of 1998. Cognizance has been taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act besides Sections 468,469,472 and 487 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is that an inspection was carried out on 31.08.1998 in the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner closed his shop and ran away. The authorities collected sample of edible oil and a case was instituted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is also alleged that there was no Display Board outside the shop and no Books of Account was maintained. It is alleged that edible oil was kept by the petitioner for black marketing. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the offence is related to Special Act, then the Indian Penal Code offence will not apply. Ploy in the background - 2 - to the allegation is made because even for the sake of arguments, the allegation does not constitute the offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is also urged that storage of edible oil is not an offence. As such, specially keeping in mind under an Unification Order, fixation of storage limit has to be done and the same has not been made workable in absence of classification and verification thereto. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision in the case of Mohan Lal Rajgardia Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. page 261. Additional submission is, cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation. To that extent, the order taking cognizance lost barred under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code if the allegation is confined to the substantive offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. But the above aspect was not being taken into consideration while taking cognizance by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,(East), Muzaffarpur. Keeping the above submission into consideration as also the proposition laid down in the case of Mohan Lal Rajgardiha (Supra), no offence has been made out. In view of the same, the order taking cognizance dated 30.6.2002/1.7.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (East), Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 241 of 2009 is hereby quashed. This petition is allowed. U.K. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J)