IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1814 of 2008 GITA DEVI, wife of Devdatt Kumar, resident of Orient Club, P.S.- Kaji Mohammadpur, District- Muzafarpur, Proprietor of New Krishak Kalyan Akharaghat Road, Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5/ 27.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 07.07.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur in Ahiyapur P.S. case no. 391 of 2006 / Tr. No. 2616 of 2007, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 7 Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution against the petitioner has been initiated on three grounds: Firstly; That on the relevant date i.e. 25.10.2006, he was carrying seeds, though his license had expired on 17.06.2003. Secondly; That he did not contain the necessary information’s regarding the seeds and from where it was supplied. Thirdly; The stock registers were not in order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had already applied for renewal of his license on 12.06.2006, which was subsequently renewed. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for dealing in the said trade. He further submits that the First Information Report itself would show that the details of seeds and the place from where it was dispatched were all duly mentioned. So far allegation of non-production of register is concerned, learned counsel submits that all requisite - 2 - registers were placed before the officer. Heard the parties and perused the record. A P.D.S. dealer cannot be prosecuted if during the pendency of renewal application of license, he carries on the business in the trade, provided renewal of his license, gets approval subsequently. This Court in case of Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1999 (1) P.L.J.R. 730, relying upon a decision in case of Nathulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1966 SC 43 held that a licensee cannot be prosecuted, if the renewal of licence is pending. So far as the allegation that the bags did not disclose the nature of the seeds and from where it has been dispatched, the same stands rebutted from the prosecution case itself. The First Information Report shows that such details were mentioned. The defence of the petitioner that he has all the necessary registers and details were mentioned and authorities unlooked to see it, cannot be looked at this stage. The petitioner may take all these points at the time of framing of charge. In the result, this application is dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)