IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5547 of 2009 SURENDRA SHAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 07.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Questioning the order dated 5.12.2008, rejecting the application for discharge from a prosecution under Sections 406, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the submission is that specific objection was raised that wheat was a free sale commodity, and there was no material that the wheat seized was of a quality sold through the Public Distribution System only and that was no specific allegation of sale in black market, but only suspicion, reliance is placed on an order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4784 of 2009. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner produced no evidence that the alleged free sale wheat had been purchased by him from what sources. In Cr. Misc. No. 4784 of 2009 this Court quashed a similar prosecution noticing that empty F.I.C. bags were available in the open market. That rice was a free sale commodity. There was nothing to 2 suggest that the rice seized was of a quality sold through the Public Distribution System only, and that the allegations of black marketing were generalized, based on suspicion without any allegation of actual black market sale. The order dated 5.12.2008 is held to be unsustainable in light of the aforesaid discussion, the facts being similar. It is accordingly set aside. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)