IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6802 of 2009 MAHENDRA SAO . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 6.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Challenging the order of cognizance dated 17.1.2009 of the petitioner in Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 118 of 2008, giving rise to Jahanabad Tr. No. 1560 of 2009, pending before the S.D.J.M., Jehanabad, the short submission is that the allegation under Sections 409 and 406 of the Penal Code and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act have been made by a private individual and not by one of the officials authorized in Clause-4 of the notification dated 26.5.2007 issued by the State Government under the Distribution Control Order, 2001. It is next submitted that to invoke the provision of 409 of the Penal Code, there is to be a specific allegation of breach of trust in respect of that property. There is no allegation that the food grains alleged to be that of a Public Distribution System was being sold to an unauthorized person in breach of trust placed in the petitioner for sale to only person entitled under the Public Distribution System. The submission therefore is that the allegations in the F.I.R. are vague 2 and did not invoke the applicability of the provision of Section 409 of the Penal Code. This Court is satisfied that the prosecution is not maintainable as it has not been instituted by one of the persons authorized under the notification dated 26.5.2007. The allegations do not contain any ingredient to invoke the applicability of Section 409 of the Penal Code in absence of any specific averment of the manner in which the food grains have allegedly been disposed contrary to the conditions. The First Information Report being speculative in nature is accordingly quashed. The application is allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)