JUDGMENT : A.P. SINHA, J. 1. This application is directed against the ORDER :dated 20.12.1985, taking cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The prosecution has been launched against the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Licencing ORDER :as also the Display ORDER :. The learned Advocate has stated that the firm named and styled as M/s. Prem Trading Company was owned by the father-in-law of petitioner Shiva Shankar Prasad and as a matter of fact when the father-in-law had become incapable of looking after the affairs of the Company he had inducted Shiva Shankar Prasad (petitioner no. 2) as a partner and he was managing the affairs of the Company. When his father-in-law died he had applied for substitution of his wife's name as a partner in place of his father-in-law. Petitioner no. 3 happens to be the Munib. Therefore, the contention appears to be acceptable and reasonable that the question of mens rea does not arise for carrying on the business without a licence. In view of the fact that petitioner Shiva Shankar Prasad had become a partner already before the death of his father-in-law and he had made application for adding his wife's name in place of his father-in-law, it cannot be construed that he was carrying on the business without any basis whatsoever. 3. There is also an allegation that Gupteshwar Prasad, the Munib, had stated that the Malik had instructed him to sell Vanaspati at a higher price than the price displayed. I am afraid, such an allegation seems to be unacceptable in absence of any evidence whatsoever that any person had complained that he had to pay more for the Vanaspati. The allegation cannot be said to be such which warrants a criminal prosecution. 4. A vague statement is made in the complaint that sanction has been obtained as provided under the proviso to Clause 6 of the Display ORDER :. I am afraid that is not sufficient. The sanction ORDER :ought to accompany the complaint petition as it becomes the very basis of taking cognizance. That being so, the vague statement makes the allegation vague and on such vague allegation it will not be advisable to continue the prosecution. It will result in the abuse of the process of the Court. 5. The sanction ORDER :ought to accompany the complaint petition as it becomes the very basis of taking cognizance. That being so, the vague statement makes the allegation vague and on such vague allegation it will not be advisable to continue the prosecution. It will result in the abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Considering all these points, the ORDER :of taking cognizance in hereby set aside and the application is allowed.