IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.660 of 2009 1. SHANKAR LAL SAH, SON OF LATE SACHIDA NAND SAH 2. ASHOK KUMAR SAH, SON OF LATE SACHIDA NAND SAH BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE HAFLAGANJ, P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KATIHAR P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3 11.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Cognizance has been taken by order dated 26.7.1995 by Special Judge, Katihar under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against petitioners. On 8.7.1995 a raid was made in the house of petitioner no. 1 as well as in the house of one Hari Prasad Sah. Two cases were instituted numbered as Complaint Case No. C II Case No. 2/1995 and Complaint Case No. and Complaint Case No. C II Case No. 3/1995. The allegation against Hari Prasad Sah was that 300 bags of paddy were recovered from his house/godown and 87 bags of paddy were recovered from the house/godown of petitioner no. 1. Hari Prasad Sah filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4243 of 1996 before this Court and by order dated 6.1.2000, this Court considering the fact that there is no restriction for storage of paddy in the unification order quashed the proceedings relying on the case of Smt. Kiran Bala Jain @ Smt. Kiran Bala Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 730. Counsel for the State submits that in this case the trial has commenced and four witnesses have been examined on behalf of 2 prosecution whereas two witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence and as such the filing of this application is at a belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the Court has ordered for re-examination of witnesses under Section 326(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by order dated 13.11.2008 which has been produced in this Court during the hearing of this application. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not move this Court under the belief that since the prosecution has not been able to support the case, the matter would have come to an end however, unfortunately it is transferred to another Court and an order was passed under Section 326(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whatever be the factual position, one aspect of the matter is clear which is that if there is no restriction for storage of paddy in the unification order the continuation of the prosecution would amount to waste of time and abuse of the process of law. Considering this aspect of the matter taking cognizance including the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. C II Case No. 2/1995 pending before the S.D.J.M., Katihar stands quashed. The certified copy of the order dated 13.11.2008 may be kept on record. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)