Judgment S. H. S. Abidi, J. 1. Petitioners have come to this Court under Sec.482, cr. P. C. against the order, dated 9/4/1983 passed by the learned Special Judge, dhanbad. Taking cognizance of the offence under Sec.7, E. C. Act and section 414,i. P. C. against him. 2. It appears that a first information report was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, Jharia, that on 2/1/1982 at about 5.40 p. m. he got some information that at Bus-stand No.4 petitioner No.1, Jiwanlal Agarwal had brought 18 tins of rape-seed refined oil and was searching for customer. On getting this information he made an entry in the station diary and went to the bus-stand and he seized the said oil of the petitioners in presence of the witnesses. On enquiry no papers could be produced, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are father and son. The information after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 18 tins of rape-seed oil that have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners do not weigh five quintals. Each tin contains about 16 Kgs. and if 18 tins are taken together it will come about two quintal 88 Kgs. and so under clause 3 of the bihar Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1966, as well as Pulses, Edible Oil-seed and Edible Oils Storage Control Order, 1977 (Central Order), the petitioners are not liable for a licence and so no offence is made out for the reason that there is no allegation that the said articles were stolen. 4. Looking to the provisions contained under the two aforesaid orders, the Bihar Order and the other Central Order, clause 3 in each of the said orders mentions that if some one possesses 5 quintals of the said oil, does not require a licence. As no licence is required so the accused could keep the same article without any licence. The only allegation is that after fixing fake lable the accused had brought the articles for sale. In view of the fact that the petitioners are not liable to have a licence for keeping upto 5 quintals of rape-seed refined oil and they can sell it, no offence under the E. C. Act appears to have been made out against them. Further there is nothing to show that they were attempting to sell the same. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioners are not liable to have a licence for keeping upto 5 quintals of rape-seed refined oil and they can sell it, no offence under the E. C. Act appears to have been made out against them. Further there is nothing to show that they were attempting to sell the same. 5. As regards the offence under Sec.414, I. P. C. it mentions that whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. There is no allegation in the first information report or anything appears to have been mentioned in the charge-sheet to show that the concerned articles were stolen property. In the absence of a prima facie evidence, no offence under Sec.414,i. P. C. or under Sec.7 of E. C. Act is made out against the accused. In these circumstances, the order taking cognizance under the said section does not appear to be made out from the material on the record and so the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has stated that by order dated 16-2-1983 this Court in an application by the petitioners in the matter has observed that in case confiscation proceedings have not been started in respect of the property then that will be released. By the order-sheet dated 5-4-1983 it appears that there being no confiscation proceedings and so the properties were released. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 19/4/1983 is quashed.