Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The question, which has been referred to the Division Bench for decision, is as to whether the paddy is a foodstuff, which is an essential commodity as defined under Section 2(a)(v) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?

2. The said question has arisen in the following circumstances. The petitioner is a wholesale licensee under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order). It caries a business in purchasing paddy from the agriculturists and selling the same to the Rice Mills owner in the districts of Buxar and Rohtas. On 5.4.1992 at about 5.30 p.m., the Block Supply Officer, Rajpur, along with other officers, inspected the premises of the petitioner, verified the records and found that the closing balance on 4.4.1992 was shown as 12 quintals 75 kgs., whereas, the opening balance on 5.4.1992 was shown as 9 quintals 75 kgs. Thus, there was a shortage of 3 quintals of paddy. Similarly on physical verification, it was found that there was an excess of 173 quintals 25 kgs. of paddy, for which no document was produced, which showed that the aforesaid stock of paddy was kept in violation of. the terms of the licence and for the purpose of black-marketing. On 7.4.1992, the aforesaid Block Supply Officer filed a written report with the Officer-in-charge of Rajpur Police Station for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act in violation of the provision of the aforesaid Unification Order. A copy of the said FIR has been annexed as Annexure 1.

3. The petitioner has filed the present application for quashing the First Information Report on the ground that the paddy is not foodstuff which is an essential commodity defined under Section 2(a)(v) of the Act. The Central Government has power to issue order for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein. Section 5 of the Act empowers it to delegate the aforesaid power to the State Government or such office or authority subordinate to it.

The Central Government delegated the power to the State Government to make a law for regulating for prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of the foodstuffs, etc. in pursuance of which the aforesaid Unification Order has been issued requiring for obtaining licence for dealing in the articles mentioned in the said order. Paddy is also one of the items controlled by the aforesaid Unification Order and as the paddy is not an essential commodity, the State Government has no power to make a law for the regulation of the same. In other words, as the paddy is not an essential commodity, the State Government in exercise of the delegated power cannot regulate the sale, etc. of paddy and as such any violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Unification Order with regard to paddy will not be an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and in that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act is an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the State combating the aforesaid submissions, submitted that the word Foodstuffs under Section 2(a)(v) of the Act has been used in the wider sense and as the paddy is only a stage in the produce of rice, it is a foodstuff and thus, an essential commodity and the State Government by virtue of delegated power under Section 5 of the Act is competent to regulate the sale, etc. of paddy.

5. By virtue of Entry 33 of List III of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Parliament has enacted the Act to provide in the interest of general public for the control on the production, supply and distribution, trade and commerce in certain commodities.

Section 2(a) of the Act defines the essential commodities. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue orders for regulating or prohibiting the production, suppl