This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 3 of 2012 (G.R. No. 39 of 2012) including the order dated 3.7.2012 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, a dealer, under the public distribution scheme lifted 135.60 quintal of rice from the SFC godown for its distribution among the beneficiaries but he did not distribute the rice @ 40 Kg. per person and, therefore, the villagers had made complain to the informant. On receiving such complain, the informant-Circle Officer, Jaridih was asked to make inquiry. During that course, when he inquired from the petitioner he said that he has already distributed the rice among the card-holders but the card holders who had assembled there started saying that they have not received the rice and without distributing the rice the petitioner has made entries in the register of receiving rice by them. When the stock register was verified, it was found that the entries have been made with respect to distribution of rice to the card holders and even LTI were affixed against the names of card holders but those card holders had never put LTI after receiving commodities from the shop.

3. On such allegation, a case was registered as Jaridih P.S. Case No. 3 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Upon submission of charge-sheet when cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 3.7.2012 it was challenged before this Court.

4. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Central Government repealed all control orders applicable to PDS Dealer with effect from 31.8.2001 when it promulgated Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 whereby annexe 6 to the Public Distribution System Order does prescribe that the State Governments are to issue an order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for regulating sale and distribution of the commodities relating to Public Distribution System but the State Government, Jharkhand has not issued any such order under Section 3 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and thereby the PDS Dealers who even indulge themselves with the illegality and irregularity in the matter of distribution of essential commodities to the beneficiaries of the scheme cannot be prosecuted. Thus, the prosecution against the petitioner gets vitiated.

5. Other limb of the argument is that under the said order the State Government is required to authorize some person with the power of search and seizure in terms of Clause 10 of the said order, but the State Government till date has not come forward with any authorization authorizing any person to make search and seizure in terms of Clause 10 of the said order. Therefore, if any search and seizure is made by a person who has not been authorized in terms of Clause 10 of the said order, such search and seizure would be quite illegal and the prosecution based on such seizure would get vitiated and under this situation, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Dealer under the Public Distribution System are being governed by the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984 and under that provision, licences are being given to the PDS Dealer to deal with the matter relating to distribution of the commodities and therefore, unless that Unification Order is repealed specifically by any subsequent order, the provision of the said Unification Order would remain in vogue and thereby FIR never warrants to be quashed.

7. The proposition which has been advanced on behalf of the State see