IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46669 of 2007 Jaso Devi ,W/o Late Bindeshwar Chaudhary,resident of Village-Paithana, P.S. –Rahui ( Vena),District-Nalanda -------------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ---------- Opp.Party ---------------- For the petitioner : M/S Sanjiv Kr.Chaudhariyavi, and Uday Kumar, For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhay,A.P.P ------------------ O R D E R 3 22-01-2009 The sole F.I.R. named accused of Rahui (Wena) P.S. Case no.144 of 2007 has prayed for the quashing of the First Information Report thereof seeking her prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C.Act”) and Section 420 I.P.C. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the informant, the Incharge Block Supply Officer, Rahui, submitted a written complaint before the Officer Incharge, Rahui ( Wena) P.S. on 12.7.2007 stating inter alia that Balmukund Prasad and other consumers had given an application against the petitioner alleging shady distribution of kerosene oil and charging excess amount against the fixed price . In this connection, it was alleged that the petitioner distributes kerosene oil once in two months and charges Rs.11 per litre. The beneficiaries under the Antodaya Scheme and B.P.L. card holders had also complained about irregular distribution of foodgrains and charging of - 2 - excess price. It is submitted that although the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation in respect of the allegations made against her, the authorities without considering the same show cause/explanation had suspended her license of dealership under the Public Distribution System and lodged the F.I.R. Assailing the impugned order on two grounds it was firstly submitted that the allegation of offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was not applicable to this case and secondly, that by virtue of the provisions of clause 31 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification) Order,1984, a dealer under the Public Distribution System was protected from prosecution being an agent of the State Government . In this connection several decisions of this Court was brought to my notice. The learned A.P.P. sought to justify the impugned order on the ground that sufficient evidence of the petitioner indulging in black- marketing had come to light and her prosecution was justified. Black-marketing of articles meant for supply under the Public Distribution System is a contravention of the terms of the licence and not an offence under the E.C. Act so as to invite prosecution under Section 7 thereof. 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 some Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act controlling trade of any commodity. In the absence of such allegation a - 3 - prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is not maintainable or sustainable. There is no allegation in the instant case of any Order made under Section 7 of the E.C. Act being violated by the petitioner. In view of the discussion made above, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-