IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13571 of 2007 RAMAVTAR PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 10.9.2008 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Counsel, M/s. D.N.Tiwari and Ravi Bhushan, Advocates for the petitioner as also Mr. Shishir Kumar, J.C. to G.A. III. The petitioner who happens to be a dealer under Public Distribution System is sought to be prosecuted for offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the E.C. Act”) in connection with Manpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2006, G.R. No. 1701 of 2006. The Circle Officer cum Block Supply Oficer, Biharsharif submitted a written report before the Officer – In – Charge, Manpur P.S. requesting him to institute a first information report against the petitioner herein on the allegation inter alia that on the direction of the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, an inquiry was conducted by the Supply Inspector, Biharsharif and Supply Officer, Sarmera on 14.9.2006 and in course thereof it was found that in July 2006 the petitioner had lifted kerosene oil twice and it has not been distributed amongst the consumers. Some of the consumers had complained of not being supplied with kerosene oil and even if they were supplied it was at the rate of Rs. 12/- per liter. It is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a dealer under the Public Distribution System cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of E.C. Act in view of Clause 31(2) - 2 - of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 which prohibit prosecution of the dealers under the Public Distribution System as they happen to be the agent of the Government. There is another aspect of the matter. No where in the purported F.I.R. has any mention been made as to what order made under section 3 of the E.C. Act has violated or contravened so as to call for a prosecution under section 7 of the E.C. Act. It is by now well settled that for a prosecution under section 7 of the E.C. Act there must be some orders made under section 3 of the E.C. Act which is violated or contravention and in absence thereof no prosecution under section 7 of the E.C. Act would lie. In the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby set aside and the State Government is penalized with cost of Rs. 10,000/- for filing frivolous litigations and the amount to be deducted in instalments from the defaulting Circle Officer cum Supply Officer. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)