Judgment P.B.Prasad, J. 1. In this application the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 30-7-87 passed by learned Special I Judge, Purnea, in Special Case No. 5 of 1986 by which he has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The Circle Inspector of Digalbank submitted a written report to the Officer-in-charge of Digalbank Police Station in the district of Purnea on 19-1-1986 alleging therein that on 18-1-1986 he intercepted one truck bearing No. BRK-4245 on which bricks and 21 drums of Coal Tar were loaded. He inquired from the driver about the Coal Tar, which was loaded on the truck in 21 drums. It appears that while the driver was being interrogated, petitioners No. 1 and 2 directed the driver, petitioner No. 4, to proceed with the truck and unload the bricks near Kali Mandir. Further ease of the prosecution is that the driver of the truck managed to escape with the Coal Tar to Nepal. On the allegations made in the F. I. R a case under Section 7 of the E. C. Act was instituted and investigation was taken up by the police. 3. In course of investigation several witnesses were examined including the Custom Officer of Nepal, who denied the allegation of the aforesaid truck going inside Nepal on the date of the occurrence with the Coal Tar. 4. On the submission of the charge sheet, arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the trial Court that there is no control order on the Coal Tar either by the Central Government or by the State Government of Bihar under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, and, as such, there is no violation of any order concerning Coal Tar. According to the learned Counsel, no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 7 of the E. C. Act and, as such, they deserve to be discharged. 5. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was resisted by the Special Public Prosecutor in the Court below and it was contended that Coal Tar is derivative of Coal and, as such, is an essential article given in schedule II of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, and, as such, the provisions of aforesaid control order are attracted in this case. 6. 6. The trial court, an careful consideration of submission of learned counsel for the parties, accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor and rejected the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and, as such, took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 E. C. Act. 7. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that the impugned order dated 30-7-1987 is arbitrary and against the provisions of law. From the allegations made in the F. I. R. no case under Section 7 of the E. C. Act is made out. There is no reliable material on the record to hold that Coal Tar is an essential commodity or there is control order with respect to it. Learned counsel further contended that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, the petitioners were only the carriers and there is nothing on the record to hold that they were dealing with Coal Tar or they were in the possession of the same in contravention of any control order with respect to Coal Tar. According to him prosecution of the petitioners in the instant case is abuse of the process of the court and the entire prosecution is fit to be quashed. 8. On going through the records of this case and on hearing the argument of the lawyers for the parties, it appears that the prosecution had failed to seize the 21 drums of Coal Tar, which were the subject matter of dispute in this case. The most crucial point in the instant case is whether the prosecution of the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in absence of the Coal Tar for possession of which the present prosecution has been launched against the petitioners, for prosecution of an offence for possession of unauthorised articles, in absence of its seizure and production of the articles in the court the case of the prosecution becomes very much doubtful and, in normal course, the same is not likely to succeed for the reasons stated above. The way in which this case has been instituted and the investigation has been done, coupled with the facts that the vehicle was allowed to flee away to Nepal makes the entire case of the prosecution wholly suspicious and indicates gross carelessness and negligence on the part of prosecution. 9. Coal Tar is a commodity, which is generally not purchased for personal consumption. 9. Coal Tar is a commodity, which is generally not purchased for personal consumption. It is mostly purchased by the Public works Department of the State Government or other concerned departments, which are mainly engaged in the construction of road. 10. In Schedule II of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, Coal Tar has not been described as essential commodity. Coal is there. The Court below has held that Coal Tar is derivative of coal and, as such, it comes under the purview of Coal Control Order. Sec.2(b) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 defines "Coal", which is as follows : "Coal"-means coal, Coke and other derivatives and includes soft coke, hard coke of various grades. The above definition of coal does not say anything about Coal Tar when it speaks specifically about soft coke, hard coke of various grades. Thus there is nothing of definite nature in the above said Bihar Trade Article (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, to conclude that Coal Tar is an essential commodity and there is control order with regard to it. 11 For a criminal prosecution, the party must know the definite charge against him. He must be made to understand that he violated or contravened certain provisions of the Ace and the rule. On vague allegation, which is not definite, no prosecution can be launched. The order for violation of which if anybody is to be prosecuted, it must; be specific, certain and clear so as to view a reasonable, precise and adequate guidance otherwise it will be very difficult for an innocent man to avoid prosecution. 12. On behalf of the petitioners argument has been advanced that possession of any article within a moving vehicle is not an offence. In support of this contention learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Orissa High Court in case of Prem Bahadur V/s. State of Orissa, 1978 Cr LJ 683. In this decision it has been held that transhipment in a moving vehicle would not amount to storage. 13. In the present case, the facts and circumstances do not make out a clear case of violation of any Control order and, as such, do not attract the provisions of Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 14. In this decision it has been held that transhipment in a moving vehicle would not amount to storage. 13. In the present case, the facts and circumstances do not make out a clear case of violation of any Control order and, as such, do not attract the provisions of Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 14. In view of the discussions made above and on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, allowing prosecution of the petitioners in the instant case will be an abuse of the process of the Court. 15. In the result, the application is allowed, the impugned order dated 30-7-87 is hereby quashed and the proceeding against the petitioners in the instant case is dropped.