IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9391 of 2008 BISHWANATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 22.9.2008 Heard Sri N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who is a wholesale dealer in kerosene oil and is sought to be prosecuted in Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 482 of 2007 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”) has prayed for quashing of the first information report of the said case. The prosecution case as culled out from the written report submitted by the Supply Inspector, Nokha, inter alia is that on 6.10.2007 the Sub Divisional Officer had found that one Imam Khan was carrying 600 liters kerosene oil on rickshaw thela without any paper and he on query disclosed that he had lifted the same from the shop of the petitioner. On the aforesaid premise it was suspected that the kerosene oil was being carried away for sale in black market and a request was made to register a case under section 7 of the E.C. Act. It has been submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value no offence punishable under section 7 of the E.C. Act can be said to have been made out against the petitioner. The admitted position is that kerosene oil was being carried on a rickshaw thela and the seizure was made while kerosene oil was in transit. That apparently could not be said to make out an - 2 - offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act since apart from the confession of the rickshaw thela puller it could not be presumed that the same was being transported to the shop of the petitioner. At best it could be said that there was merely preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence. It was next submitted that in the original Unification Order no storage limit has been fixed and in absence of storage limit as held by several decisions of this court the Unification Order was not workable. On perusal of the written report submitted and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be apparent that there has been no mention of any Order made under section 3 of the E.C. Act which can be said to have been violated by the petitioner. The law is very clear on this issue inasmuch as if no offence is made out from the averments of the written report or complaint showing contravention of an Order made under section 3 of the E.C. Act then one cannot be prosecuted for an offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act . Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution of the petitioner would be an absolute misuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly the application is allowed and the F.I.R. of Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 482 of 2007 so far the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)