IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17809 of 2007 BINDA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 18.9.2008. Heard Sri N.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, a dealer under the Public Distribution System and Sri A.M.P. Mehta, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the F.I.R. of Ara (Nawada) P.S. Case No.294 of 2006 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”) for alleged violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order 1984. According to the written report submitted by one Anil Kumar, Supply Inspector, Ara Town, on receipt of confidential information at around 5 P.M. on 22.12.2006 that some dealers under the Public Distribution System were lifting food grains from the State Food Corporation Godown meant for Antodaya and B.P.L. Schemes on Tata 407 trucks and taking the same away for black marketing, he alongwith other officials raided Gorahana situated godown where he found wheat and rice stored in an illegal manner. 65 bags were machine stitched whereas 161 bags were hand stitched and 47 empty bags were recovered, all having the marking of Food Corporation. Three persons were arrested from the godown, one of whom was Bhudev Pandey, a Fair Price Dealer shop owner and the other two Aditya Kumar and Rajesh Kumar are said to have been involved in black marketing. On their interrogation Bhudev Yadav gave out that - 2 - one Madhu Yadav used to come from the S.F.C. godown with a truck and used to take away wheat and rice from these dealers. It is further alleged that from the adjacent office, the register of the shop of the present petitioner without the yellow page and those of other dealers were recovered. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that her prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was not only bad but was also illegal as no irregularity or illegality was found in her godown and whatever rice and wheat were seized were from the godown of Ramji Singh situated at Gorhani Mohalla and this petitioner had been implicated only because she was found in the adjacent office. It is by now well settled by a catena of decisions that the dealers under the Public Distribution System being agent of the Government are given protection from the prosecution by Clause 31(2) of the Licenses Unification Order and as such the prosecution of the petitioner is to my mind an abuse of the process of the court. Apparently, no offence either under the E.C. Act or under the Licenses Unification Order can be said to have been made out against her from the recital in the written report submitted by the Supply Inspector. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the order taking cognizance as against the petitioner is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)