Judgment P.S.Sahay, J. 1. The inherent power of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petition for setting at rest a criminal prosecution initiated under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 114 of the Defence of India Rules and Sections 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner is a whole sale licensee under the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred as Order) which has been made under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act). This came into force with effect from 7th June, 1967 and under Clause (3) every person who wanted to carry on business either as a retailer or a whole seller had to obtain licence. Application for whole sale licence have to be filed in Form-I with the prescribed fee and the Licensing authority after being satisfied, used to grant licence in Form-III in which a number of terms and conditions have been mentioned and the licensee under Clause (9) of the Order was bound to comply with all the terms and conditions and also any other direction issued from time to time either by the State Government or by the licensing authority. The petitioner, after obtaining licence, was working as a whole sale dealer and was the proprietor of the Firm known as M/s. Rameshwar Lal Radha Kishun, Marufganj, Patna City. The shop was inspected by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Food) in which a number of irregularities were found and thereafter a written report was filed before the Police; copy whereof has been filed and marked Annexure-1. It has been stated in the report that the petitioner sold tins of Vanaspati oils to different persons but on enquiry it was found that all the sales were fictitious. Persons to whom the sale was made, on enquiry, denied the transaction and it was also found that the persons, who were named as purchasers, were not traced and were nonexistent. Persons to whom the sale was made, on enquiry, denied the transaction and it was also found that the persons, who were named as purchasers, were not traced and were nonexistent. The last portion of the report is as follows: From the above facts it is established that this Firm has shown sale of Vanaspati in the name of those which either do not exist or have not lifted the tins as shown in the sale register and that tins thus sold have been sold by proprietor in black-market and this Firm, namely, Rameshwar Lal Radha Kishun have thus by showing such false sales, created scarcity conditions in the market of this essential commodity. The firn noted above has thus made false entries in the sale register etc, which are public documents and have thus also caused hindrance in the equidistribution of the essential commodities. Along with the report the statement of the so called purchasers, recorded in course of enquiry, was also filed. After investigation charge sheet was submitted in this case. A copy of the same has been filed and marked Annexure-2 On the receipt of the charge sheet cognizance has been taken, as mentioned above, and being aggrieved by the order dated 21-7-1977 the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. Mr. Narmadeshwar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the facts constituting the offence is not made out as required under Sec.11 of the Act and, therefore, the Order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. He has, further, submitted that it is not incumbent on the whole sale lincensee to verify whether the purchasers were real or fictitious and even if the names given are of persons who are non-existent, will not amount to any offence under the aforesaid Order. He has, further, submitted that for the first time direction was issued by the District Magistrate as the licensing authority on, 15th March 1974 that details of the purchasers should be verified before the sale is effected and there was no such provision earlier. A copy of the direction issued by the licensing authority has been filed and marked as Annexure-3. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on an unreported decision of this Court where similar points were involved in the case of Bharat Prasad Kasera V/s. State of Bihar Cr. Misc. A copy of the direction issued by the licensing authority has been filed and marked as Annexure-3. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on an unreported decision of this Court where similar points were involved in the case of Bharat Prasad Kasera V/s. State of Bihar Cr. Misc. No. 5580 1974 disposed of on 3-10-1978. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, appearing on behalf of the State, has, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in taking cognizance and on a plain reading of the first, information report and the charge sheet offences have been made out and this, has to be thrashed out in the trial and this Court should not interfere. This case came up before me when I was sitting singly and similar arguments were also advanced before me but in view of the Clause (4) of the terms and conditions of the licence, I doubted the correctness of the aforesaid unreported decision and by my order dated 1-8-1980 I directed this case to be placed before a Division Bench and that is how this has come before us. 4. In view of the fact that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed great reliance in the case of Bharat Prasad Kasera (supra), it is necessary to consider that case in some detail. The petitioner in that case also was a whole sale licensee as in the instant case and a report was submitted on which cognizance was taken under those very sections as in the instant case. That was challenged in this Court and a learned single Judge held that there was no allegation under Sections 465 or 468 and 114 of the Defence of India Rules had no application and, therefore, the cognizance was bad. His Lordship further held that even if it was a case covered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act the facts constituting the offence as required under Sec.11 of the Act have not been made out and, therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner was bad. Further it has been held that from the charge sheet it was not clear what particular order made under Sec.3 of the Act had been violated and, therefore, the cognizance was bad in law. Further it has been held that from the charge sheet it was not clear what particular order made under Sec.3 of the Act had been violated and, therefore, the cognizance was bad in law. Learned Judge relying on the Circular dated 15-3-1974, which is Annexure-3 in the instant case, further held that prior to that date no duty was cast on the licensee to verify the identity of the customer and even if they gave out fictitious names the licensee cannot be said to have committed any offence. On these grounds the application was allowed and the prosecution was quashed. 5. After carefully going through the aforesaid judgment and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in my opinion the decisions seems to be wrong on all the points which I will presently show. To start with that no offence is made out under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, it is wholly misconceived because of the clear assertions made in the reports that the name of fictitious persons with fictitious licence number had been entered in the books which is maintained in the usual course of business. The question whether those entries were made in a bona fide or in a mala fide manner can only be ascertained in course of trial, but prima facie there is a clear allegation and it cannot be said that no offence is made out. The another reason of the learned Judge that the facts constituting the offence under Sec.11 of the Act is not made out is equally unsound. Sec.11 of the Act reads as under: 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 person who is a public servant as defined in Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In this connection it has also further been observed by the learned single Judge that only the charge sheet has to be looked into and no other material is equally unsound. A similar argument was also made in the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar -- . 6. In this connection it has also further been observed by the learned single Judge that only the charge sheet has to be looked into and no other material is equally unsound. A similar argument was also made in the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar -- . The argument that the court could merely look at the report and not to any other documents even including the original information of the offence to fill in the lacuna was repelled by their lordships and it was held that the report as envisaged by Sec.173 Sub-Clause (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which had to be accompanied, as required by Sub-section (5), by all the documents and statements of the witnesses mentioned therein and such a report will be a police report under Sec.190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under the Act upon such a Police report Sec.11 would be complied with in its entirety. In my opinion, this decision is a complete answer to this point and the decision of the learned single Judge is, therefore, bad in law and the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, can look into all the reports as well as its accompaniments for taking cognizance. 7. The last reasoning of the learned single Judge that no duty was cast to verify the identity of the customer and for the first time there was a direction on 15-3-1974, as contained in Annexure-3, is also fallacious. Such direction is already mentioned under Clause (4) of the terms and conditions of the licence granted to the petitioner in Form-III. Clause (4) of the terms and conditions enjoins upon the licensee to maintain the register and 4(a) may be usefully quoted: The name and address of the dealers to whom Vanaspati sold, the quantity of Vanaspati supplied, the date of sale, the rate on which sold and the total price charged. Under Clause (7) the licensee has to issue to every customer a correct receipt or invoice giving full trading name, address, licence number and also mention the address of the customer mentioning the date of sale, the quantity sold and rates etc. etc. Under Clause (7) the licensee has to issue to every customer a correct receipt or invoice giving full trading name, address, licence number and also mention the address of the customer mentioning the date of sale, the quantity sold and rates etc. etc. Probably this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge otherwise he would not have mentioned in his judgment that there was no such direction prior to 15-3-1974. Similar mistake was committed by this Court where the prosecution lodged under Section 7 of the Act for violation of the Display Order was quashed on the ground that Soda Ash was not an essential commodity or an article in respect of which there was any statutory order compelling the dealer to display the price and declare the stock. The matter was taken by the State to the Supreme Court and in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Gulab Chand Prasad -- it was conceded that Soda Ash was included in the schedule of Essential Commodities and was in force. The judgment of this Court was reversed and their lordships held as follows: The whole basis of the approach of the learned Judge of the High Court gets knocked out once the Order is shown to be existing and in force. May be, the High Court would be acted as we propose to do if the Order was shown to the learned Judge hearing the matter...it would be unwise to ignore the existence of a subsisting Order and to dispose of a proceeding as if no such Order is there. 8. Thus, on a careful consideration of the points raised and for the reasons mentioned above, I am constrained to hold that the case of Bharat Prasad Kasera (supra) has been wrongly decided and has to be overruled. On the allegations made in the first information report and the charge sheet prima facie offences are made out and the cognizance cannot be said to be bad in law. There is no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The case is pending since the year 1977 and it should be disposed of expeditiously. Let the lower court records be sent down at once.