JUDGMENT : Binodanand Singh, J. This application under sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the ORDER :dated 14.3,1986, by which the Special Judge, Purnea (Essential Commodities Act) has taken cognizance of offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitioners in Special Case no. 45 of 1984. Initially this application was filed as an application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code initiated on the basis of a complaint filed including the aforesaid ORDER :, but by ORDER :dated 26.3.1986 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H.S. Abidi this application was converted into an application under sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the moment this application is for setting aside the aforesaid ORDER :. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of these petitioners briefly stated are that petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm carrying on wholesale business in Food-grains having a valid wholesale Food-grains licence bearing Licence No. 465/76 issued under the provisions of Bihar Food-grains Dealer's Licensing ORDER :, 1967 and petitioner no. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. On 23.5.1984 at 5.35 A.M. Mr. Abdul Rashid, Additional Marketing Officer, Araria in presence of witnesses Sri R.S. Paswan, Assistant District Supply Officer, Araria and Md. Afak, Supply Inspector, Araria and R.K. Jha, Assistant Marketing Officer, Araria intercepted two trucks bearing No. B.R.K. 6917 and B.R.K. 5075 at Sahid Chowk Jauki Hat, Purnea, carrying 256 bags of wheat weighing 256 quintals. On interrogation from the driver, it was learnt that the Food-grains namely the wheat was said by M/s Ghanshyam Udyog i.e. petitioner no. 1. The Inspecting Officer, i.e. Mr. Abdul Rashid was not satisfied from the papers i.e. credit memos produced by the Drivers and hence two trucks of wheat were seized. Thereafter, a complaint was filed in the court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Purnea on 25th May, 1984 after inspecting the petitioners firm and the relevant papers and registers maintained under the Bihar Food-grains Dealers Licensing ORDER :, 1967. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Purnea took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by ORDER :dated 14.3.1985 after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the Special P.P. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Purnea took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by ORDER :dated 14.3.1985 after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the Special P.P. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that on the basis of the allegations as mentioned in the petition of complaint no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioners. In this connection it has also been submitted that besides the allegations attracting the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act certain allegations have also been made against the petitioners in the petition of complaint fur violation of certain provisions of Sales Tax Act as well as Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, and Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953. But in the petition of complaint, the complainant i.e. Assistant Marketing Officer has mainly alleged the violation of Food-grains Dealers' Licensing ORDER :s, 1967 and hence has made a prayer for the prosecution of the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. That the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners Firm had sold on credit 131 quintals of wheat and 125 quintals of wheat to M/s Manoranjan Shaha of Flalkata. Sub-divisional Alipurduar, District Jalpaiguri and M/s Sachidanand Shaha of Gosain Hat, district Koochbehar, West Bengal, respectively, Accordingly the petitioners firm issued credit memos being credit memo no. 4 dated 23.5.1984 with respect to 125 quintals of wheat sold on credit to Messrs Sachidanand Shaha and credit Memo no. 5 dated 23.5.84 with regard to the credit sale of 131 quintals of wheat to M/s Manoranjan Shaha. The aforesaid two consignments were loaded on two public trucks bearing BRK 6917 and BRK 5075 for being transported to their respective destinations and the driver of the said two trucks were given the aforesaid credit memos to be carried with them. 5. The trucks left Araria early in the morning so that they could deliver the goods and return to Araria by the same evening. 5. The trucks left Araria early in the morning so that they could deliver the goods and return to Araria by the same evening. The two credit memos were immediately produced before the respecting Officer by the respective drivers but under some misconception of law the Inspecting authority i.e. the Assistant Marketing Officer, who is the complainant of this case seized the two wheat loaded trucks and has launched this prosecution against the petitioners. In this connection it has been contended that the allegations as contained in the petition of complaint do not constitute any offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act. Since according to the allegations as alleged by the prosecution there has been no violation of any provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or of any ORDER :issued thereunder or has committed violation of any provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing ORDER :, 1907 as also none of the terms and conditions of the Licence issued to the petitioners under the Bihar Foodgraim Dealers' Licensing ORDER :for conducting tae wholesale business in foodgrains has been violated. 6. According to the petition of complaint the petitioners had committed five kinds of irregularities as mentioned in the petition of complaint. First is that there is no printed sl. no. on the credit memos besides the credit memos is not attested by any officer. Regarding this allegation it has been submitted that neither under the terms and conditions of the licence nor under the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing ORDER :, 1967, there was any necessity of having a printed sl. No. on the credit memos nor there is any provision either in the ORDER :or in the terms and conditions of the licence that the credit memos should be attested by an officer. Thus on this account there has not been any violation of any kind. The second irregularity which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is that the petitioners had not taken signature of the purchaser on the credit memos issued in the name of Om Prakash Kailash Chandra, Naya Bazar, Siliguri and accordingly there is no signature of the purchaser on credit memo no. 4. Regarding this allegation as well the contention of the petitioners counsel is that there is no such requirement either under the terms and conditions of the Licence or under Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licence ORDER :. 4. Regarding this allegation as well the contention of the petitioners counsel is that there is no such requirement either under the terms and conditions of the Licence or under Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licence ORDER :. Thus this allegation does not constitute any kind of irregularity. The 3rd allegation is that some overwriting has been made in credit memo no. 4 dated 21.5.1984. Since the date 21.5.1984 has been over written as 23.5.1984. It has rightly been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard as well that mere over writing in the date may be bonafide one and in this context it has been pointed out that in the seizure list itself, there are several overwriting. Mere overwriting in the date do not constitute any kind of irregularity. These are the three allegations on the basis of which the petitioners were sought to be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. I say so because it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that so far as the irregularity no. 4 is mentioned in the petition of complaint is concerned it relates to the violation of the provisions of Sales Tax Act. Regarding this it has been submitted that Sales Tax was charged from the purchasers and this fact is mentioned in the credit memos themselves. If at all irregularity no. 4 will constitute any offence it will be an offence under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act for which the sanction for prosecution of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, was a condition precedent and the Special Judge Essential Commodities Act was not empowered to take cognizance under the Sales Tax Act against the petitioners. Likewise regarding irregularity no. 5 as mentioned in the petition of complaint it has been submitted that the allegations as mentioned in irregularity no. 5 can at the most constitute an offence under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 and for prosecution under this Act as well the sanction of prescribed authority as provided by that Act was a condition precedent. Besides, the Special Judge was not competent to take cognizance for an offence under Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to controvert the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Besides, the Special Judge was not competent to take cognizance for an offence under Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to controvert the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Thus as pointed out above, the irregularities as mentioned in the petition of complaint at Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 do not constitute any offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for the reasons stated above. 8. In the circumstances, the ORDER :dated 14.3.1985 taking cognizance against the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is obviously illegal and without jurisdiction. This application is, therefore, allowed and the ORDER :dated 14.3.1985, passed in Special Case no. 45 of 1984 is hereby set aside.