IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8449 of 1999 OM PRAKASH GUPTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.27886 of 2001 SURENDRA PRASAD @ SURENDRA SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.33958 of 2000 YOGENDRA SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners: Shri Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : Shri Ajay Mishra, APP --------- 5/ 16.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The three petitions seek quashing of prosecution initiated through charge sheet submitted in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 378 of 1993 upon which learned Special Judge E.C. Act, took cognizance of offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and directed the petitioners to face trial in the above case. The allegation is that on making a search of business premises of M/s Venkateshwar Industries (Pulse Mill), the informant and his accompanying personnel found pulses of different varieties, as indicated in the seizure memo, weighing 372.85 quintals, rice weighing 31 quintals besides maize weighing 60 quintals, stored there. The further allegation is that some obstructions were created by the petitioners in allowing the premises to be searched and the trade articles to be seized but, with the help of the police, the same was accomplished and, accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged which ended 2 up in submission of charge sheet, upon which an order summoning the petitioners was passed on 25.9.1993 by the learned Special Judge in the above noted case. By placing two decisions of this Court, one reported in 1988 PLJR 502 (Satya Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar) and the other, unreported but passed vide order dated 19.2.1992 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 412 of 1991, it was contended that at the relevant time there being no licence fee or any condition of licensing being prescribed by the legislature, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for storing pulses weighing 372.85 quintals. It was further contended that as regards rice and maize, those were within the storage limit vide G.S.R. No. 49 dated 17th October, 1985. It was, as such, contended that the very prosecution of the three petitioners was bad in law. Besides, it was contended that the real proprietor of the premises was petitioner Yogendra Sah. Petitioner Om Prakash Gupta in the other petition was his son and as may appear from the FIR, petitioner Surendra Prasad had arrived as one of the office bearers of the Grain Dealers Association. In support of the above contention that Yogendra Sao is the proprietor of the premises, attention has been drawn to Annexure 3 of Cr. Misc. No. 27886 of 2001. As may appear from the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order), the pulses of different varieties have been scheduled as trade articles as may appear from Schedule I Part B. It is indeed true that 3 there was a storage limit prescribed by the above noted G.S.R. no. 49 dated 17th October, 1984 as regards the retail dealers but, as may appear from the whole scheme of the Unification Order, there was no mention as to retail or wholesale dealer in pulses shall be required to obtain a licence which has been indicated by Schedule 4 appended to that Order. This could be the reason that the benches of this Court have quashed the proceedings earlier, as may appear from above mentioned two decisions. Having regard to the earlier decisions of this Court and also having regard to the fact that there was no notification as regards compulsion of having licenses for storing, purchasing and selling pulses, the prosecution of the petitioners of the three petitions, appears completely bad in law. The same stands quashed. The three petitions are allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)