JUDGMENT Ram Naresh Thakur, J. The petitioner have prayed for quashing the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, dated 24.3.1981, passed in case no. 17 of 81/1436 T.R. of 81 taking cognizance against them under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The genesis of the story, in brief, is that Sri Ganga Nand Prasad, Supply Inspector, Dumraon, submitted a report on 20.3.1981 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, against these two petitioners with the allegation that petitioner no.1 Sheo Pujan Ram got a permit no. 8311 dated 8.10.80 to purchase 240 bags of cement for the construction of his house from supply department. In pursuance of that permit he purchased 240 bags of cement from Rohtas cement factory Dalmianagar On 16.2.81 and brought those bags to his godown On 17.2.81. It is alleged that on 25.2.1981 the godown was inspected by Sri Ganga Nand Prasad, Supply Inspector, and found 168 bags of cement lying in the godown. Thus there was shortage of 72 bags of cement which led him to presume that 72 bags of cement the petitioners had sold in blackmarket. On the basis of this report the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against these two petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and the case was transferred to the file of Sri Kapileshwar Prasad. Judicial Magistrate, Buxar for disposal. Against this order of taking cognizance this criminal miscellaneous application has been filed. 3. At the outset it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Janardan Sinha, that petitioner no. 1 is dead and he has stated this on his personal knowledge. The learned counsel appearing for the State says that he has no information on this point. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petition of complaint. as it is, does not make out any offence under the Essential Commodities Act against these petitioners, therefore, the order, taking cognizance, is fit to be quashed. Secondly it is argued that the petitioner no. 2 can in no case be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act because the permit was issued in the name of the petitioner no. 1 and there is no allegation against this petitioner no. 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that petitioner no. Secondly it is argued that the petitioner no. 2 can in no case be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act because the permit was issued in the name of the petitioner no. 1 and there is no allegation against this petitioner no. 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that petitioner no. 1 got the permit for construction of the house but he did not construct the house, therefore, it will be legally presumed that he sold 72 bags of cement, which were not found on 25.2.1981. 6. It is admitted case that petitioner no.1 got a permit for 240 bags of cement for construction of house and by virtue of that permit he brought those 240 bags of cement on 17.2.1981 after being purchased. Just after one week the complainant went and checked the cement and found shortage of 72 bags of cement I have also seen the original petition of complaint. In the third line from the last it was written "SANDEH KIYA JATA HAI KI ABHIYUKT NE CEMENT BHAWAN NIRMAN KE KARYA MEN NA LAGAKAR KALABAZAR MEN BIKRI KIYA," The word "SANDEH KIYA JATA HAI" appears to be penned through in different ink without any initial. There is a seizure list on the record. In para 5 of the seizure list it is mentioned that "SANDEH KIYA JATA HAI KI INHONE UKT 72 BORE CEMENT KI BIKRI KAR Dl HAI." There is a report at page 7 of the lower court record written by the complainant addressed to the A.D.M., Supply, in which it is also mentioned "ATAH AISA MANKAR KI INHONE 72 BORE CEMENT KALABAZARI MEN BECH DIYA HAI TATHA SESH 168 BORE BHI KALABAZARI MEN BECHE JA SAKTE HAIN." Therefore, it is clear that on mere presumption this petition of complaint was filed against the petitioners. There is nothing to show that these petitioners were found selling any bag of cement in blackmarket or otherwise. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. petitioner no. 1 is no more in the world, who had purchased the said bags on the basis of the permit granted to him and against petitioner no. 2 there is no specific allegation whatsoever in the petition of complaint except that he is the son of petitioner no. 1 and he is a wholesale dealer of food grain. 7. petitioner no. 1 is no more in the world, who had purchased the said bags on the basis of the permit granted to him and against petitioner no. 2 there is no specific allegation whatsoever in the petition of complaint except that he is the son of petitioner no. 1 and he is a wholesale dealer of food grain. 7. Under the circumstances mentioned above I think this is a fit case in which the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained. Accordingly the application is allowed and the order taking cognizance against petitioner no.2 is set aside. Application allowed.