Madan Mohan Prasad, J.

This is an application for quashing a proceeding pending against the petitioner in respect of an alleged offence committed by him under rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules') for violation of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1976 (hereinafter to be called 'the Order').

2. It appears that on certain confidential information the shop and godown of the petitioner were raided by a Magistrate and police on the 1st of November, 1976 when admittedly, the shop was closed. They were accordingly sealed and a couple of days thereafter, that is, on 3rd of November, 1967, the shop was opened by the party raiding and was inspected and an inventory of the articles found therein was made and the articles were also seized. The result of the inspection was (i) that there was no proper display of prices on the date i.e. the 1st of November, 1976, (ii) that prices of certain articles found were not displayed at all, (iii) that the person present failed to produce the books of account, and (iv) that certain articles of fire works were found for which the petitioner had no licence. A prosecution report was, therefore, made by the Assistant Marketing Officer. The Sub-divisional Magistrate sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence of violating rule 114 of the Rules. The police on the basis of the aforesaid report instituted a case under the aforesaid provision of law and took up investigation. While the investigation was still proceeding, the petitioner came up to this court asking for quashing the proceeding and releasing the articles seized.

3. A supplementary affidavit was, however, filed on 19th of February, 1977, attaching a copy of the final form submitted by the police which states Final report mistake of fact under rule 114 D. I. R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points, firstly that the final form submitted by the police itself says that no case has been made out and is therefore, not a prosecution report within the meaning of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, (hereinafter to be called the Act) and, secondly, that no display of prices or stocks is required when the shop is closed and, therefore, the non-display does not constitute an offence. Both these arguments are sound and must be accepted.

5. There can be the least doubt that the display of prices and stocks in a shop are required to be made only when the shop commences business. Section 3 of the order itself lays down that every dealer shall "before commencement of his business on any day display a list of price of articles mentioned in Schedule 1, the prices of article mentioned in Schedule 2 and list of prices specified by the Commissioner or the District Magistrate of the articles in Schedule 2. It is dictated by simple common sense that prices and stocks are not to be displayed when a shop is closed. The obvious intention behind the law requiring display of prices and stocks is to let the customers know as to what are the articles available and at what prices. Apart from any authority, what so ever, therefore, it needs no argument to establish that display of such articles is not envisaged by the law when a shop is not open for business at all. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in this connection on a decision of the Supreme Court in Nathmal vs. State of Rajasthan and others. The arguments must, therefore, be accepted.

6. Section 11 of the Act, lays down as follows:-

"11. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

It is obvious there from that there must be a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who must be a public servant, A f