CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.26158 of 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure) SHEO NARAIN SINGH, S/O Sri Ram Bilash Singh, Resident of Village Pitambarpur, P.S. Ghoshi, District Jehanabad ………….Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Tiway, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amrendra Prasad, A.P.P. * * * * * P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA * * * * * Akhilesh Chandra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 29.07.2004, passed in G.R. No. 23/2000/Tr. No. 275/2004 arising out of Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 62 of 2000 by learned 2 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, refusing the prayer of discharge made by the petitioner and deciding to proceed for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Public Distribution System dealer as per prosecution case. On 07.01.2000 an enquiry was conducted under the Headship of Deputy Superintendent of Police. As per report there were several complaints received against the petitioner with respect to keeping the shop closed for several times and supplied sub standard materials, even at enhanced rate etc. The case was instituted against the petitioner on the written report of Supply Inspector, Ghoshi, Jehanabad. 4. Only point was raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of Clause 31(2) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order 1984. The petitioner being 3 the Public Distribution System dealer has been exempted from any such action. Reliance has been placed in a decision of this Court in a case of Ramchandra Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2010(3) PLJR 17. Paragraph No. 5 of the aforesaid case reads as such-: 5. “The Central Government has framed the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 under the Essential Commodities Act. The State Government was required to issue necessary notification for implementation thereof in accordance with law. Such notification admittedly was issued and came into effect on 15.2.2007. Clause 17 of this notification stated that 4 all prosecution initiated prior to 15.2.2007 shall continue to be governed in accordance with the law at the time when the occurrence took place. The petitioner, therefore, would be protected under the Control Order, 1984.” 5. This case, of the year 2000 is squarely covered under the decision aforementioned and subsequent notification of the year 2006. 6. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the exemption clause to the Public Distribution System dealer as petitioner an offence being covered under exemption clause. The proceeding before the court below is hereby quashed and this application stands allowed. Patna High Court Date : 5th August, 2010 Praveen/- (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)