IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41919 of 2007 RAM BILAS MAHTO, S/o Sri Ram Prit Mahto, R/o Laheri Tola, Ward No. 5, Lalganj Nagar Panchayat, P.S. Lalganj, District – Vaishali …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Opp. Party ----------- 4 9.1.2009 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this application the petitioner prays for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Lalganj P.S. Case No. 60 of 2005 registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C.Act”) for violation of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Unification Order”) which is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the F.I.R. on two grounds. Firstly it was submitted that the petitioner is a dealer under the Public Distribution System and in view of the provisions of Clause 31(2) of the Unification Order which provides protection to dealer under the Public Distribution System he could not be prosecuted. Secondly it was sought to be urged that the Block Supply Officer who held the alleged search and seizure was not competent to conduct the search and seizure and therefore the entire allegations leveled against the petitioner cannot be justified. I am unable to accept the two submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reasons are as follows:- - 2 - It appears from the paragraph 11 of the petition itself that the license of the petitioner was suspended between the period 29.3.2004 and 20.4.2006. The alleged date of search and seizure was 15.3.2005 i.e. on a date when the license of the petitioner stood suspended and in that view of the matter he could not have undertaken any of the acts with which a dealer under the Public Distribution System is empowered. So far as the question of the informant not being competent to conduct the search and seizure is concerned the State Govt. in the Department of the Food and Civil Supplies and Commerce by G.S.R. No. 40 dated 29.11.1989 empowered the Block Supply Officer of their respective Blocks and in Blocks under their charge to conduct search and seizure in respect of premises against which complaints were received or of their own accord. In view of the discussions made above I do not find any merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such dismiss this application. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)