IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47797 of 2007 PRAMOD SHAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 12/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 16.8.2005 under Section-7 of the E.C. Act arising out of Samastipur Town P.S. Case No.277/05 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. The allegations are that the shop of one Umesh Thakur, a P.D.S. dealer, was raided. There were deficiencies found when part of the grains for which he was unable to account was recovered from the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner is not a P.D.S. dealer. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgement of this Court reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 289 (Mahanthi Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Bihar) in support of his submission that he could not be prosecuted under the provisions of Section-7 of the E.C. Act. A Bench of this Court at paragraph-5 of the judgement held as follows:- “It is well settled that only a licensee under the Public Distribution System may be prosecuted for violation of any terms and conditions of the licence issued under the unification order.” 2 The prosecution of the petitioner, who is not a P.D.S. dealer, under Section-7 of the E.C. Act is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The entire prosecution, insofar as the present petitioner alone is concerned, in Samastipur Town P.S. Case No.277/05 is quashed. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)