Judgment A.P.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. This application is directed against the impugned order dated 22-8-1979 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.O. Case No. 29 of 1979 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120-B and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has been initiated on the basis of complaint petition, which is Annexure-4 to this application. 3. The complainant happened to be the Supply Inspector of Dhanbad. The petitioner and one Khurshid Alam have been named as accused persons. It has been stated in the complaint petition that on 29-10-1978 the complainant with witnesses had raided the coal depot of the petitioner situated in village Kalyanpur, P.S. Gobindpur in. the district of Dhanbad. Khurshid Alam was working as the Munim of the petitioner. The raiding party demanded licence from the Munim and also the stock and sale register and cash memo but he could not produce the same. The raiding party also found that there was no compliance of the provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Stock and Price) Order, 1977. The raiding party had seized the stock of 100 tons of coal. After seizure the coal had been entrusted to the Munim, who has been described as accused No. 2, as stated above, for safe custody and for that he had executed a Zimmanama and had further agreed to produce the seized coal as and when ordered by the authority. Thereafter the coal had been confiscated under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the Additional Collector Dhanbad by his order dated 24-3-1979 passed in Confiscation Case No. 10/78. After the order of confiscation the complainant was directed to sell the confiscated coal at prescribed rate and deposit the sale proceed in the treasury. On 9-6-1979 the complainant went to the coal depot at village Kalyanpur where the seized coal was kept and found that the entire stock of the seized coal which was made over to accused Khurshid Alam on Zimmanama had been disposed of by accused No. 2, Khurshid Alam in collusion with the petitioner and there was no trace of the coal in the depot. The complainant tried to contact the accused persons but could not succeed. 4. The complainant tried to contact the accused persons but could not succeed. 4. It has been rightly argued that when the prosecution case, as stated in the complaint, is that the coal had been entrusted to the Munim Khurshid Alam, the question of criminal breach of trust attributed against the petitioner cannot be said to be at all applicable. Further the allegation of conspiracy making out a case under Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code is quite weak. No details have been mentioned that in what manner conspiracy has been committed and what is the basis for the complainant to say that the petitioner had entered into conspiracy with Khurshid Alam. Once the seized articles had been entrusted to Khurshid Alam, the property was definitely outside the ownership and possession of the petitioner and, therefore, if any criminal liability has been sought to be fastened stating there be of conspiracy, in absence of any apparent and cogent material, the prosecution on the basis of the complaint, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be said to be without sufficient evidence leading to a futile prosecution. 5. It appears from the reading of the complaint petition itself that the complainant was not able to contact the petitioner and even the Munim and, therefore, neither the petitioner nor the Munim had been given the opportunity to explain and produce the coal. Simply because the coal had not been found at that particular spot, where it was sagged, inference that it has been sold without giving details as to what had been the materials to come to this inference, I am afraid the allegations attributed against the petitioner is weak and the prosecution is not expected to succeed, there being a case of no evidence. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance as also the prosecution against the petitioner only is hereby quashed and this application is allowed.