IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36065 of 2007 BHIBHISHAN RAI @ VIBHISAN RAI, S/o Siya Rai, R/o Berna, P.S. Gayghat, District – Muzaffarpur …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opp. Party ----------- 3 24.11.2008 Heard Mrs. Rekha Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who is a dealer under the Public Distribution System (hereinafter referred to as “the P.D.S.”) has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 19.6.2007 passed by Sri Prakash Kumar Sharan, Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East) in Gaighat P.S. Case No. 143 of 2003 whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the “E.C. Act”) against the petitioner and a few others named in the F.I.R. It appears that at about 6 P.M. on 7.10.2003 a trailor – tractor was apprehended by the A.S.I. Gaighat P.S. in front of the house of Kusheshwar Choudhary in Harijantola containing 84 bags of wheat weighing 44 quintals, 31 kilos and 3 bags of rice weighing 1 quintal 82 kilos. The people who had collected informed that the articles on the tractor were meant for the ration shop of the petitioner and one Rameshwar Choudhary. On enquiry it was detected that the items had been issued from the F.C.I. godown but on verification the same were not found in the shops of the two P.D.S. dealers. On a written report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Gaighat, the - 2 - aforesaid case came to be registered. This application must succeeds on three counts:- Firstly, a dealer under the P.D.S. in view of the immunity provided by Clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order cannot be prosecuted, since he happens to be an agent of the Government, for offences under the E.C. Act. Secondly, the F.I.R. does not disclose as to which Order made under section 3 of the E.C.Act has been violated. Section 7 of E.C. Act deals with the persons who contravene any Order made under section 3 of the E.C. Act thereof but when the F.I.R. does not disclose which Order made under section 3 of E.C. Act has been contravened no prosecution lies. Thirdly, merely because some trade articles are being carried, it cannot be inferred, without anything else, that they were being carried for selling in black makets. See Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998(2) PLJR 330. For the reasons assigned in the paragraphs hereinbefore , the application must succeeds. The impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)