IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8892 of 2010 Rajiv Kumar, S/o Mahendra Prasad, R/o Vill. Birauli Bazar, P.S. Rupauli, Dist. Purnia. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar. ---- Opp. Party ----------- 2 30.03.2010 Heard Mr. Pashupati Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner has assailed the order taking cognizance dated 26.7.2005 by filing this application after a period of almost five years by taking a plea that no offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is made out against the petitioner. In this context, he has also relied on an order of this Court dated 29.9.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 21165 of 2007 wherein the prosecution against the petitioner, namely, Nakul Kumar was quashed by noticing that the allegation against him was confined to storage of five bags of onion and one bag of sugar. In the opinion of this Court, it would be difficult for the petitioner to contend at this stage that no offence under Section 7 of E.C. Act is made out, inasmuch as, the involvement of the petitioner has been alleged 2 in the First Information Report and which in course of investigation has also been found to be true leading to the filing of charge-sheet against him and the same cannot be said to be not covered by the unified control order. What would actually make the case of the petitioner distinguishable from the case of Nakul Kumar (supra) is that the bag of F.C.I. containing rice, which is exclusively meant for its being sold in the fair price shop through public distribution system was found from the possession of the petitioner who was a dealer and licensee under Control Order. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a fair price dealer nor a licensee under the Unified Control order and therefore, if he has been facing the allegation of being involved in sale of the control items, that by itself would constitute offence under Section 7 E.C. Act. Additionally this Court would not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution against the petitioner should be quashed merely because the relevant provision of the control order was not mentioned while launching prosecution 3 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act inasmuch as it is not the label but the content of prosecution report has to be taken into consideration for taking cognizance of offence. That being so, there is no infirmity in the impugned order taking cognizance and consequently this application being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)