CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.38578 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. MOST.GAYATRI DEVI, wife of Late Kameshwar Prasad Verma, resident of Rani Pakri, P.S. – Bettiah Muffasil, District – West Champaran. 2. Md. Wakil, son of Late Khatoon Mian, resident of Pipra pakri, P.S. – Bettiah Muffasil, District – West Champaran. 3. Pradeep Kumar, son of late Vidya Tiwari, resident of Rani Pakri, P.S. – Bettiah Muffasil, District – West Champaran 4. Shankar Sah, son of Late Raghuvir Sah, resident of Pipra Pakri, P.S. – Bettiah Muffasil, District – West Champaran. 5. Aash Mohamad Ansari, son of Late Saral Mian, resident of Roopdih, P.S. – Bettiah Muffasil, District – West Champaran. -------------- Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------Opposite Party. For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Saket Tiwary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ****** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of order dated 22.03.2001 passed in Bettiah (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 105/2002 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, taking cognizance for the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in view of Clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984. Petitioners being the Public Distribution System dealer have been exempted from 2 any such action. Reliance has been placed in a decision by a Bench of this Court in Ramchandra Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2010(3) PLJR 17, besides order of this court dated 5th August 2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26158/2004 Sheo Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar. Wherein 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 15.02.2007. Clause 17 of this notification stated that all prosecution initiated prior to 15.02.2007 shall continue to be governed in accordance with the law ad the time when the occurrence took place. The petitioner, therefore, would be protected under the Control Order, 1984.” 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of Government Notification G.S.R. 1 dated 12th October 2002 tried to submit that petitioners deals with the grains provided under the Antyodaya Scheme also and now it has been included in earlier notification that exemption clause is available to the P.D.S. Dealer excluding dealing with the grains of Antyodaya Scheme etc. but, at the same time, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that such insertion is applicable only from the date of notification whereas in the instant case, the alleged offence was committed in the month of March 2000 and 3 cognizance has also been taken in March 2001. Thus, instant notification is also not maintainable. 5. In view of the above, impugned order is hereby allowed and this application stands allowed. Patna High Court date : The 28th September 2010 Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)