JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in E.C. Act Case No. 39/85 initiated against him including the order dated 4.4.1987 by which the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act has taken cognizance of an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'E.C. Act') against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is one of the partners of the firm M/s. Satya Narain Prasad Radhey Shyam. The said firm carries on business in food grains, pubes, oil seeds and other articles at Bara Chakia in the district of East Champaran. 3. From the First Information Report, it appears that in course of raid on 16.5.1985, the Addl. District Magistrate, Supply, East Champaran sealed the business premises of the petitioner in his absence. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that on 20.5.1985 the petitioner learnt that in his absence the premises of the said firm was broken open on 17.5.1985 by the authorities of the Supply Department including the informant Marketing Officer and various articles were seized namely wheat in 2 bags measuring 1 quintal and 60 kgs., pulses 31 quintals and 61 kgs and oil seeds 5 quintals and 47 kgs including some other articles namely Bakala, Saunf, Mahuwa and Caster. 4. It further appears that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under section 7 of the E.C. Act for not obtaining any licence either under Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (for short "Central Order of 1977") or under Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (for short State Unification Order, 1984)" on the basis of which the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Motihari took cognizance u/s 7 E.C. Act against the petitioner as stated above. 5. Mr. Bharukha, learned counsel appear ring on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court because at the material time no order u/s 3 of the E.C. Act was in force in the State of Bihar requiring licence for dealing in pulses of various types or the ether seized articles. Therefore, the entire criminal proceeding was misconceived and bad in law and fit to be quashed. 6. Therefore, the entire criminal proceeding was misconceived and bad in law and fit to be quashed. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is that the firm had violated clause 3 of the Unification Order by storing more than 30 quintals of food-grains without a licence obtained under the said unification order. The further allegation was that the firm had no licence for dealing in pulses and the stock and prices of the commodities had not been displayed. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the State Govt. in exercise of the powers delegated to it under section 3 of the E.C. Act was pleased to issue and promulgate the Unification Order, 1984 which came into force w.e.f. 19.4.1984. In the said Unification Order, the food-grain has been defined under clause 2 (g) which means any one or more of the food grains as specified in Part "A" of schedule-1 and includes products of such food grains other than husk and brar. Clause 2 (o) defines pulses which means any one or more of the pulses as specified in Part 'B' of Schedule-1. The Unification Order has also defined retail dealer as well as wholesale dealer in clause 2 (p) and clause 2 (u) respectively. Clause 3 of the Unification Order deals with licensing of dealers. According to clause 3 of the Unification Order, no dealer can carry on business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any of the trade articles mentioned in Schedule 1 except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority under the provisions of this Order. Under clause 4 of the Unification Order, every application for grant of licence (either wholesale or retail) shall be made to the licensing authority in Form. 'A' alongwith the fee, prescribed in Schedule IV and every licence issued under this order shall be in form 'C' and subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 8. Schedule 1 of the Unification Order is divided into several parts and Part 'A' deals with food-grains and Part ‘5; deals with pulses. Schedule IV of the Unification Order prescribes fee specified in the said schedule which shall be chargeable in respect of licences and their annual and trinnial of different trade articles which shall be deposited in Government, treasury. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Schedule IV of the Unification Order prescribes fee specified in the said schedule which shall be chargeable in respect of licences and their annual and trinnial of different trade articles which shall be deposited in Government, treasury. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Bharuka that no licence fee has been prescribed for pulses. Therefore, the question of taking licence does not arise at all. It was further contended that no storage limit prescribing in respect of pulses mentioned in Part 'B' of Schedule 1 of the Unification Order had been laid down at the material time. Therefore, the entire prosecution is bad in law and misuse of the process of the Court. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also pointed out that in view of clause 1 (3) read with clause 32 of the Unification Order, various orders referred to in schedule III of the Unification Order, including the Bihar Food-grains Dealers' Licensing Order was repealed with effect from 19.4.1984. Clause 2 (p) and 2 (u) of the Unification Order as indicated above, have defined retail dealer and wholesale dealer as persons engaged in business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any articles for the purpose other than personal consumption within the storage limit fixed by the State Government from time to time. It was submitted that at the relevant time the State Government had not prescribed or promulgated any order fixing any storage limit of the trade articles. According to his submission even if the seized articles was found to be more than 10 quintals on the date of seizure i.e. 17.5.1985, there was no order operational to cover pulses or any other food-grains because the State Government had not issued any notification as required by clause 2 (u) and 2 (p) of the Unification Order, 1984 which order had come into operation by then So, there was vacuum and this seizure occurred during that period. 10. Clause 18 of the Unification Order provides for restriction on the possession of trade articles in quantity exceeding the limit to be fixed by the State Government and unless there is any restriction by the State Government, there was no violation of any order which necessitates initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 11. 10. Clause 18 of the Unification Order provides for restriction on the possession of trade articles in quantity exceeding the limit to be fixed by the State Government and unless there is any restriction by the State Government, there was no violation of any order which necessitates initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 11. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is a central order known as Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 and under clause 3 of the said order, no person shall carry on business as dealer in pulses or edible oil seeds or any edible oils except under and in accordance with the 'terms and conditions of the licence granted by the state Government. According to clause 3 of the Central Order, no person shall carryon business without any licence granted under the State order if the stock of the pulses exceeds 10 quintals for all pulses taken together. Therefore, according to learned Government Advocate, if any person will store the pulses for business exceeding 10 quintals, he will have to obtain licence. The learned Government Advocate may be fight but I may point out here that the dealer will obtain licence in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under the State Order and unless there is a State Order in force, clause 3 of the Central Order cannot have any application because the Central Order is clear on this point and if a person deals in pulses and if the stock of the pulses exceeds 10 quintals then he has to obtain a licence from the licensing authority in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under the State Order. But I, have already indicated above that there was no State Order in force at the material point of time, therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Government Advocate. Unless there is State Order in force at the material time, a dealer cannot obtain a licence for dealing in pulses, I may again point out here that clause 4 of the Unification Order is clear on this point that every application for grant of licence shall be made to the licensing authority in form 'A' along with the fee prescribed in schedule IV. Schedule IV has not prescribed any fee for obtaining licence for pulses So, in my view, there is a lacuna in schedule IV of the Unification Order as well when pulses have been bifurcated in Part II from food grains and schedule IV prescribes licence fee for food-grains then there ought to have been a prescribed fee for pulses as well. In that view of the matter, the question of violation of clause 3 of the Unification Order or the violation of clause 3 of the Central Order does not arise at all in the instant case. 12. Mr. Bharuka has also placed reliance on some observations made in the case of Arjun Singh vs. The State of Bihar, 1985, P.L.J.R. 898 where this aspect has also, been dealt with. 13. In C.W.J.C. No. 3395/1987 (M/s. Rajesh Trading Company Vs. State of Bihar & Others)* disposed of on 25.8.1987, the order of confiscation of certain articles was assailed and in assailing the impugned order the learned counsel raised two points of significance. The first point was that once the articles, seized has been found to be gram seed there was no order under section 3 of the E.C. Act that covers it and the seizure and the consequent confiscation proceeding as also the impugned order was entirely misconceived and bad in law and the second submission was that even if the seized article was found to be gram on the date the seizure took place i.e. 28.10.1984, there was no gram or any other food grain because the Government had not issued any notification as required under clause 2 (u) of the Unification Order. On the second point, the matter pad received finality on the concession being made by the learned Advocate General himself in Cr. Misc. No. 3284/1985 where it was found that no notification fixing storage limit under clause 2 (p) and 2 (u) defining wholesale and retail dealer was issued by then and Their Lordships allowed the said application and quashed the impugned order. Against that order, the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union moved the Supreme Court in a petition for Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No. 1370/1987 and the Special Leave petition was dismissed in limini. 14. Against that order, the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union moved the Supreme Court in a petition for Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No. 1370/1987 and the Special Leave petition was dismissed in limini. 14. In that view of the matter, it is an admitted position that a notification as envisaged under clauses 2 (p) and (u) of the Unification Order or for that matter under clause 18 thereof was not issued by the State Government till the date of occurrence fixing storage limit for the retail and wholesale dealer and in absence of such a notification it was not known who was wholesale dealer and who was retail dealer and who was exempted from obtaining licence and who was not. 15. It was also submitted that even the prosecution of the petitioner under the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977 (in short 'Display Order') is illegal and fit to be quashed as no previous sanction was obtained from the District Magistrate for the prosecution. From the record, it appears that no sanction for prosecution has been obtained from the District Magistrate, therefore, the prosecution even under the Display Order was bad in law and fit to be set aside. 16. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the continuance of the prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such it is fit to be quashed. 17. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.