IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.7043 of 2009 DASARATH SAHNI, SON OF LATE MURCHI SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SIKANDARPUR BALOOGHAT, WARD NO. 15, TOWN P.S. + DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. .................... PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE MARKING OFFICER, EAST DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. ..................OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. 03/ 16.12.2010 Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21.04.2007 passed in Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 194 of 2007. The prosecution case as alleged is that 200 liters of kerosene oil was lifted for distribution at ward no. 8. However, the same was found at ward no. 10 in stead of ward no. 8 though no satisfactory reply was given and thereafter the Marketing Officer reached on the spot and alleged that he found 145 liters of kerosene oil, 45 liters less. The seizure was prepared and handed over to Devendra Pandey. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation in the Fist Information Report nor in order taking cognizance that which order or 2 condition has been violated making out a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Nothing has been mentioned in the FIR or in the charge sheet which would attract the mischief of Essential Commodities Act. It has further been contended that the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses of Unification) Order, 1984 has been repealed and substituted by Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 and Clause 10-14 of the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 came into effect on 31.08.2001 and since amendment brought by the Central notification, it has overriding effect over the previous notification and hence it is alleged that the occurrence is dated 22.05.2006 whereas the notification published under the Public Distribution Control Order, 2001 on 25.05.2006 and hence contended that in between 31.08.2001 and 25.05.2006, there was no authorization in favour of any authority for search and seizure and institution of the case and has placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2007(2) PLJR 105 and hence having regard to the facts and circumstances the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby set aside and the petition is allowed. Kundan (Gopal prasad, J.)