The lack of fixation of storage limit rendered the Unification Order unworkable for LPG, leading to the quashing of the criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. Both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. These petitions under Section 482 of the Cr PC had been filed by the above named petitioners for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 11.2.1993 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was taken by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj Sadar (Town) PS. Case No. 584/92 (G.R. No. 1808 of 1992) and issued processes against the petitioners.

3. The case in brief is that the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Daltonganj in the name of Mr. Anirudh Prasad Singh lodged a written report to the Sadar Police on 27.11.1992 alleging that Awadesh Kumar Pandey being a dealer of L.P. Gas was running a business under the name and style of "M/s. Swarna Enterprises" having licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 issued to him and also renewed till the year 1992. But the licences under the Explosive Act was not found in his possession of the year 1992 but some letters were found to have addressed to the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive for sending the licence. It was further alleged that the dealer was indulging in various irregularities in supply of L.P. Gas and was not carrying on business as per the terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at with the Hindustan Petroleum and, as such, the dealer and the petitioners, who are, the employees have become liable for prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C., Act. On the basis of such report, Daltonganj Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 584/92 was registered and Police took up investigation and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Explosive Act and also under the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of such phargesheet, learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, had split up the offences alleged under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Act as those were not triable by the Special Judge and the case was taken up in respect of only the allegations made under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act then processes were issued. According to the petitioners, in Cr. Misc. No. 559/94 (R), Awadh Kumar Pandey being the sole Proprietor of M/s. Swaran Enterprises, Daltonganj he may be held liable for any of the violation made but the petitioners being the employees are not liable for any offences as alleged. According to the petitioners, even if the whole allegations are taken to be correct as per the written report of the SDO Sadar then also no case could be made out against the petitioners. As per the petitioner Awadh Kumar Pandey, the Dealer & Proprietor of M/s. Swaran Enterprises, it is stated that as no storage limit was fixed either by the State Government or by the Central Government either for the whole- seller or the retailer then any preventive order passed cannot come within the purview of the Unification Order, 1984, and, as such the dealer was not bound for taking any licence under the Unification Order as the preventive order for L.P. Gas is neither workable nor implementable. It is further mentioned that the dealer was made to take licence under the Unification Order on threat by the authorities and even if such licence being taken the same cannot bind the petitioners. It has further been mentioned that in the first information report nothing has been mentioned as to which order or notifi- cation had been violated as contemplated under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. It is the further case that the SDO concerned registered his name with the dealer for the purpose of getting L.P. Gas connection but he was pressurising the dealer for getting the connection out of turn which was refused by the dealer and being annoyed, the present case has been filed. The main contention of the petitioner is that as there was