IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15970 of 2003 1.Krishna Prasad , son of Satya Narayan Prasad. 2. Raj Kishore Prasad, son of Bhola Prasad, both are residents of Judge Bazar, Bihiya, P.S. Bihiya, District- Bhojpur ----- Petitioners. Versus State Of Bihar -------- ---- Opposite Party. ----------- 4. 29.7.2011 Heard Mr. Saket Tiwary for the petitioners, and Mr. J.N. Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This application has been filed, inter alia, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bihiya P.S. Case No.24 of 2003 registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah. It appears from the First Information Report dated 28.2.2003 filed by the Officer In-charge of Bihiya police station that some quantities of Dalda were seized from the petitioners on the allegation that the same were found in the rural area without any legal paper in support thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the failure of the State Government to specify the classification of cities the provisions of the Bihar Trade 2 Articles (Licences Unification), Order 1984 are not workable as has been held in several decisions of this Court. He draws our attention to the order dated 24.6.1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1045 of 1987 wherein it has been clearly held as follows: “ It has been settled by this Court that if A Class and B Class Cities are not defined the Unification Order in relation to edible oil will not be workable. It has been also stated by a catena of decisions of this Court that when the Unification order is not workable the person can not be prosecuted for violation of its provisions.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the materials on record and also in view of the legal position settled through various decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that continuation of the prosecution proceeding against the petitioner in terms of section 7 of the Act would be an abuse of the process of the Court, inasmuch as no offence can be said to have been committed in relation to the goods dealt in by the petitioners under the provisions of the Unification Order being itself unworkable. As regards the criminal proceeding under sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the position is different. It is not in dispute that the seizure of the goods 3 was effected by the police as the same were found to be stored without any legal paper to prove the petitioners’ ownership thereof. Even before us, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to establish prima facie ownership over the goods with reference to any materials available on the record. Whether or not the goods in question are stolen property is a question of fact to be appropriately dealt with in the pending criminal trial. The allegations that the goods are in the nature of stolen property is quite independent of the allegations under the E.C. Act, and have to be tested on their own merits. In this view of the matter, therefore, the criminal proceedings in so far as they are relatable to the E. C. Act are hereby quashed. However, the criminal proceeding with regard to the allegation under sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code will continue to form subject matter of the trial and no interference by this Court is called for. This application is accordingly allowed in part. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J.)