IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3083 of 2008 DEO NANDAN PRASAD @ DOMAN YADAV, Son of Late SaukhiYadav, resident of Village-Meyar, Police Station-Noorsarai, District-Nalanda. --------------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------------ Opp.Party. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, and Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ________ O R D E R 4 19-01-2009 This application by the sole F.I.R. named accused of Noorsarai P.S. Case no.106 of 2007, a dealer under the Public Distribution System, is for the quashing of the order dated 13.9.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C.Act.”) The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Noorsarai , on 14.7.2007 wherein it was stated inter alia that the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner was on 13.3.2006 inspected by the Block Supply Officer, Noorsarai jointly with the Supply Officer, Biharsharif Municipality . Again an enquiry was made by the Block Supply Officer, Noorsarai, on 5.4.2006 wherein he met the consumers of Lohri Village attached with the shop of the petitioner and having recorded the statements of twenty such consumers submitted his - 2 - report. Based on the inspection reports dated 13.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 and having considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biharsharif by his letter dated 6.5.2006 suspended the licence of the petitioner. Later on he directed the Block Supply Officer to lodge a case against the petitioner by his letter dated 13.7.2007. Accordingly, the written report was submitted to the Police Station alleging that in course of inspections of the shop premises of the petitioner certain discrepancies and irregularities in the distribution of the controlled items were detected so as to invite prosecution under Section 7 E.C. Act. However, none of the discrepancies or irregularities or the nature thereof have been spelt out in the written report. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although none of the consumers of the shop of the petitioner raised any grievance against the functioning of the petitioner in course of the inspection and enquiries , and to the contrary, twenty consumers said to have complained against the petitioner have sworn affidavit denying their alleged complaints and even the Mukhiya of the Panchayat having held an enquiry came to the conclusion that there was no complaint against the petitioner and issued a letter in that regard, yet for reasons best known to the administration, the petitioner had been drawn into a malicious litigation. It was also submitted that the petitioner being a dealer under the Public Distribution System is not liable for prosecution since he is protected under clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses - 3 - Unification) Order, 1984. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State cut a sorry figure and could neither raise any possible objection to any of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor could he justify the impugned order. The petitioner having been appointed a dealer under the Public Distribution System, is an agent of the State and the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 was not applicable to him and clause 31(2) (c) thereof gives unfettered protection to him from prosecution. There is another aspect of the matter. The F.I.R. does not disclose the nature of offence as to which of the Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act has been violated. Section 7 of the E.C. Act deals with the person who contravenes any Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act but if there is no contravention of any Order made under Section 3 of the E.C. Act then no criminal prosecution can be lodged. Due regard being had to the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-