IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48102 of 2007 UMESH PANJIYARA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner:- Mr. N.K. Agarwal & Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Advocates For the State:- A.P.P. ----------- 03 19.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 9.1.2006 and the entire proceedings against him before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Special Case No. 3 of 1985 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The First Information Report lodged on 7.1.1985 states that the flying squad inspected a truck loaded with bags of flattened rice (Chura) and certain bags of rice. The papers were produced for sale of certain bags of flattened rice only to certain named retailers. 113 bags of flattened rice were found. 38 bags of rice were also found which did not find mention in the documents. The petitioner who is a whole-seller and from whom the flattened rice and rice allegedly had been purchased and was being transported is alleged to have violated the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification Control) Order and the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy Act) - 2 - Order, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the retailers whose names are mentioned in the First Information Report as purchasers of the flattened rice in respect of which cash memo were found, moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5361 of 1986, Cr. Misc. No. 570 of 1987 and Cr.Misc. No. 11980 of 1992. This Court quashed their prosecution holding that the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1984, had no application to flattened rice in so far as the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification Control) Order is concerned, was unworkable on the date of occurrence i.e. 7.1.1985 because the storage limit was not prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the recovery of 30 bags of rice, submits that the petitioner was allegedly liable to pay a levy under the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1984, more particularly, Sections 3 and 4 thereof. He submits that there are no allegations in the First Information Report that levy had not been paid. That makes the latter Act inapplicable. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that the petitioner can take the aforesaid defence during the course of trial itself and there is no justification to quash the prosecution at this - 3 - stage. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and in light of the discussions contained in the earlier orders of this Court, as discussed above, with regard to co-accused mentioned in the First Information Report itself, this application succeeds. The entire prosecution of the petitioner in Special Case No. 3 of 1985 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)