IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46151 of 2007 1. PANKAJ KUMAR, SON OF KAILASH PRASAD RUNGTA. 2. KAILASH PRASAD RUNGTA, SON OF LATE MAHABIR PD. RUNGTA. BOTH RESIDENT OF FALKA, P.S. FALKA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. ………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate and D.N. Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ---------- O R D E R 3. 19.1.2009. Pankaj Kumar and Kailash Prasad Rungta, the proprietors of shops running in the name and design of “Krishi Vikas Kendra” and “Nafed” respectively who are sought to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act(hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”) in connection with Falka P.S. Case No.112 of 2007 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 27.2.2008 passed therein by Sri B.K. Prasad, learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, whereunder he has taken cognizance under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It appears that at about 4 P.M. on 30.8.2007 in course of inspection of the two shops holding licence to sell fertilizers and running from the same premises, it was detected that expired insecticides were being sold to the customers and on further search expired insecticides were found stored inside the shops. Accordingly, - 2 - the present case was instituted. It is well settled by now that for a prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, it is necessary that the person concerned is alleged to have violated/contravened some Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act controlling trade of any commodity. In the absence of such allegation a prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is not sustainable. There is another aspect of the matter. For controlling trade of insecticides a Special Act, being the Insecticides Act, has been promulgated by the Central Government in 1968. This Act being a self contained Act with Rules formed thereunder making provisions for controlling trade of insecticides and punishment for violation thereof, any prosecution for violation of the Insecticides Act has to be thereunder and the provisions of the E.C. Act cannot be called in for aid. Section 31 of the Insecticides Act provides prior written sanction for prosecution as a prerequisite before prosecution is lodged. There appears an absence of prior written sanction before prosecution was lodged. For the reasons stated above, this application has to be allowed. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution of the two petitioners herein is quashed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)