Judgment Madan Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for offences under section 7 of the essential Commodities Act and rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules. 2. The petitioner is said to be the proprietor of a firm of wholesale dealers in foodgrains and licensed as such. On the 16th of July, 1975 an executive Magistrate is said to have searched the shop of the firm in the presence of the petitioner. He found that the board displayed in the firm indicated the stock of foodgrains, but not their prices. On enquiry, the petitioner told him that the business was closed as his daughter was to be married on that very day. Secondly, the Magistrate found that purchases of foodgrains had not been made for certain periods. It appeared from the stock register that purchases of rice had not been made from 27th June to 4th July, 1975 and from 7th July to 16th July 1975. Similarly, purchases of wheat had not been made from 26th June to 9th July, 1975 and from 11th July to 16th july, 1975. The Magistrate made a written report to the Sub-divisional Officer, bihar Sharif. On that basis, the Additional District Supply Officer filed a complaint under the order and sanction of the Sub divisional Officer saying that from the facts aforesaid it would be apparent that the dealer "purposely and motivatedly has either closed the purchases or has lessened it to an extent of creating artificial shortage in the market and he has also committed an offence by withholding from sale of these grains during the period shown above". The aforesaid complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the 19th of July 1975 and he took cognizance of the offences and transferred the case to the file of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Hence this application. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged, firstly that the shop being closed for business on the date of the search, no offence has been committed in respect of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks)Order 1975 (hereinafter called display Order) and, secondly, that the complaint petition does not disclose any offence, even though the facts be accepted in their entirety. 4. 4. With regard to the first contention, it has been pointed out that there was no denial of the fact that the shop was closed for business on the 15th of July 1975. It is said that the petitioner had given an advance notice to the district Supply Officer of the fact that his daughter was going to be married on the 16th of July, 1975 and for that reason the shop would be closed from the 14th of July to the 17th of July 1975. Annexure 1 is a copy of that application. It appears therefrom that the aforesaid letter was received on the 14th of July itself by the office of the District Supply Officer. Another paper produced by the petitioner (Annexure 2) is the letter from the District Supply Officer to the sub-divisional Officer, Bihar Sharif, and it mentions that the petitioner firm had filed an application for closure of his shop which was being forwarded by a memo, dated 17th of July 1975. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case by the Supply Inspector wherein it is admitted that the petitioner had informed the District Supply Officer on the 14th of July 1975 about the marriage of his daughter. It also admits that the aforesaid petition of the petitioner had been sent to the Sub divisional Officer, though it reached him on the 18th of July, that is, after the search. There can thus be no dispute about these facts. Obviously, thus the shop was closed for transacting business on the 16th of July. Clause 3 of the Display Order requires a dealer to display the prices "before commencement of his business". Obviously, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have violated the provisions of this clause. This Order having been promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, the petitioner cannot thus be held liable for contravention of rule 114. 5. With regard to the question whether the petitioner has violated any of the terms and conditions of his licence, the only allegation that I find in the prosecution report is that the petitioner had not made purchases during certain periods. The inference drawn therefrom, as stated earlier is that he had either stopped the purchase or had reduced it to an extent of creating artificial shortage in the market. The inference drawn therefrom, as stated earlier is that he had either stopped the purchase or had reduced it to an extent of creating artificial shortage in the market. The licence in respect of the wholesale dealers included in Form b appended to the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers licensing Order, 1967 does not contain any condition that a licensee was bound to make purchases. The relevant condition of the licence is to be found in paragraph 7 which says that "the licensee shall not withhold from sale, supplies of foodgrains ordinarily kept for sale". Obviously, the question of withholding from sale areas in respect of foodgrains already ordinarily kept for sale, and would not apply to that not kept inasmuch as there is no withholding of that which is not existing. Nothing has been shown which would make the fact of non-purchase of stocks by the petitioner an offence. There is no allegation that the petitioner had withheld from sale that which was stored in his shop. The prosecution report does not thus contain any material in support of the inference that the petitioner had withheld from sale any foodgrain on any particular day. 6. It is thus obvious from the facts stated in the prosecution report that there is no material disclosing any offence by the petitioner. In the result, the order of cognizance must be quashed. It is, accordingly, quashed and this application is allowed. Application allowed.