Judgment 1. Heard Mr. A. N. Deo appearing for the petitioner and Jhunjhunwala for the State. 2. This is an application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution started against the petitioner as also the order of taking cognizance against him dated 23-1-1986 passed by the special Judge, Hazaribagh in the following circumstances. 3. It is the admitted position that the petitioner is the licensee of whole sale dealer of foodgrains. His godown was inspected in his absence on 22-6-1985 at about 2 p. m. at Ramgarh Nayee Sarai. At the time the godown was found closed but it was got opened. The Assistant Supply Officer found that the business of the petitioner was being run in the name and style of M/s. Jai Laxmi Traders. He did not find out any display board nor he could see any paper appertaining to the stock lying there consisting of 544 bags of rice which he seized. Thereafter a regular F. I. R. was lodged and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken which is being challenged in this application. 4. It was submitted that in this case cognizance has been taken under section 7 E. C. Act read with Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences unification) Order, 1984 which is not applicable in this case. It was submitted that the Government has not issued any notification regarding storage of food-grains which was punishable for its violation. The notification under clause 18 (2)of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 came into existence only on 17th October, 1985 and, therefore, it was contended that storage was not punishable nor it was an offence on the day on which the godown was searched. It was further submitted that for any other violation sanction of the District magistrate is necessary under Clause 6 proviso of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stock) Order, 1977. 5. It is the admitted position that cognizance has been taken under Sec.7 read with Clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification (Order, 1984. Clause 3 provides only for obtaining licence for such dealers. According to the prosecution case it is the admitted position that the petitioner was a licensee and, therefore, the cognizance taken is bad in law and no offence under that section in respect of the petitioner is made out. 6. Clause 3 provides only for obtaining licence for such dealers. According to the prosecution case it is the admitted position that the petitioner was a licensee and, therefore, the cognizance taken is bad in law and no offence under that section in respect of the petitioner is made out. 6. It is the admitted position that for making out any case for storage exceeding certain limit, notification is required under clause 18 (2) of the Bihar trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 which only came into existence on 17th of October, 1985. The inspection of the godown of the petitioner took place on 22-6-1985 long before the notification came into light. Therefore, it was submitted with force and substance that storage of any quantity of foodgrains before the notification was not offence nor it was prohibited. 7. Lastly it was contended that for violation of any of the provisions of bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stock) Order, 1977, sanction under clause 6 is one of the necessary requirements which is condition precedent of taking of cognizance. It is the admitted position in this case that no sanction has been obtained. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner without requisite essential sanction is bad in law and the criminal prosecution and the order of taking of cognizance for the offence of such nature requires interference to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the order of taking cognizance dated 23-1-1986 and the entire criminal prosecution started the petitioner are hereby quashed. Application allowed.