The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations made must constitute an offence under the Essential Commodities Act for prosecution to proceed, and the lack of legal foundation for the prosecution can lead to its quashing.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution including the First Information Report lodged as Bettiah Mufassil P.S. case No. 40 of 2004 under sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the District Supply Officer West Champaran, Bettiah, gave a written report to the officer-in-charge of the Bettiah Mufassil Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 23.2.2004 two trucks bearing registration No. BR 28-9859 and BR-06-C-2622 were found infront of the godown of the State Food Corporation at Bettiah laden with 300 bags of rice each. In the report it was further alleged that the rice was brought from Gopalganj and Rohtas for black marketing. In the opinion of the District Supply Officer, instead of the rice being sold to the purchase centre by the farmers, it is being done by the middle men and consequently the farmers are not getting the benefit of the Scheme. On the basis of the aforesaid information Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 40 of 2004 was registered u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that no order made u/s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act restricts movement of rice from one place to another and, as such, petitioners cannot be said to have violated any order made under the aforesaid provision to bring the act within the mischief of sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar 1990 (2) PLJR 520, and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows :-

It is painful to note that the authorities who are the custodians of law and order are not acquainted with the latest position of law. The said Movement Control Order for the violation of which the petitioner has been put to harassment, was rescinded as far back as on 30th September, 1977. In that view of the matter the entire prosecution seems to be without any legal foundation and it is fit to be quashed at this stage.

4. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Tarapado Ghosh and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar 1990 (2) PLJR 602, and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 5 of the judgment :-

-

The Bihar Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1957 had been in operation for several years but this Control Order was rescinded with effect from first day of October, 1977 by the Central Governments Notification No. S.O. 696 (E) 30th September, 1977. This fact is accepted by the learned State Counsel. Therefore, admittedly during the time of occurrence i.e. April to June, 1978 there was no Control Order under the Act to restrict the movement of foodgrains from Bihar to any outside place. It follows, therefore, that if pulses were booked from any place in Bihar, which in the present case is Chapra, to any destination outside the State no offence arises on this account.

5. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the petitioners are not being prosecuted for violation of any movement order made u/s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act but the case was registered for violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. He points out mat according to the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Unification order, upper storage limit was only 250 quintals but the total weight of the seized rice laden in the two trucks was over 300 quintals. At the same breath he points out that foodgrains has been deleted from the Unification Order vide notification dated 11.10.2002 i.e. much before the date on which the trucks were seized but he contends that the informant did not receive the copy of the said notification and lodged the case bona fide.

6. Having