IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6084 of 2006 BHAGWAN LAL RAI @ BHAGWAN DAS RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ----------- 5. 30.7.2008. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this application the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 29.7.2004 passed in Complaint Case No.C 146 of 2004 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur has taken cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”). The prosecution case is based on the written complaint- cum-prosecution report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Raghopur, alleging therein that the petitioner being a dealer under the Public Distribution System after taking delivery of articles does not distribute the same among his consumers of Panchayat Jafarabad which is in violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order and punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It is also stated that the Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur, had deputed him for holding inquiry into the complaint vide Memo No.353 dated 26.3.2004 and after inspection he had reported to the Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur, that he had found the charge correct and at the general meeting held on 9.6.2004 the dealer had confessed that he sold the articles and kerosene oil of one month as supplied to him and supplied the articles and kerosene oil of the other months to the - 2 - consumers which was confirmed by the Mukhiya in Resolution No.5 taken at the general meeting. It is by now well settled that in view of Clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984, the petitioner being a dealer under the Public Distribution System and running a fair price shop being representative/agent of the State Government is exempted from the rigors of the Unification Order and he cannot be prosecuted for the same. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the E.C. Act would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and is required to be quashed. Since the application succeeds on this ground alone, it would be an absolute exercise in futility to discuss and decide the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)