Judgment 1. This Criminal writ is being filed for quashing the entire Criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner being Garhwa P. S. Case No.228/83, which was instituted by the Assistant Supply Officer, Palamau. 2. It appears that the criminal prosecution had started against the petitioner and when the instant writ application was admitted there was no stay and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted in this case on 4-5-1984 and cognizance has been taken on 20-6-1984, under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Consequent upon that, it appears that the petitioner had filed an amendment petition to make amendment in the prayer portion for quashing the entire criminal prosecution and also the order of taking cognizance and the submission of the charge-sheet. 3. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he is a big agriculturist holding 88 acres of land in and around Garhwa sub-division and from the said land the petitioner had extensive cultivation and produced Sarso, Tisi, Till, mahua, etc. 4. It appears that the godown of the petitioner was inspected by the Trading inspector of Garhwa Agricultural Market Committee under Sec.31-C of the Agricultural Produce Market Act, on 28-10-1983 and 11 tins of Mustard Oil 42 bags of Till, 39 bags of Mustard seeds, one bag of Tisi and 42 bags of Khalli were seized from his godown, for which ultimately, it is claimed that F. I. R. was lodged and investigation started. 5. It was submitted by Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that no offence at all is made out against the petitioner for which he should be prosecuted and as such the criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance should be quashed. It was submitted that no licence is required for possessing the Mustard Oil upto 5 quintals. It was further submitted that no licence for possession of Oil seeds, like Til, Mustard seeds or Tisi is required under the law, and admittedly no licence is required for possession of Khalli. It was lastly contended that no sanction as required under Clause 6 of the Bihar essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stock) Order, 1977, has been taken and as such the whole prosecution, even if the licence is required for possession of mustard Oil is bad in law. 6. It is admitted that the aforesaid articles were recovered from the godown or the house of the petitioner. 6. It is admitted that the aforesaid articles were recovered from the godown or the house of the petitioner. It is also conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that no licence is required lor being in possession of Oil seeds and, therefore, admittedly the criminal prosecution of the petitioner especially in respect of his being in possession of 42 bags of Til, 39 bags of mustard seeds, one bag of Tisi and 12 bags of Khalli, is not maintainable and the prosecution of the petitioner for those items amounts 10 misuse of the process of the Court. 7. Coming to the question of possession of Mustard Oil, it is admitted position that no licence is required for possession of Mustard Oil upto 5 quintals. In this case there is no specific allegation that the petitioner is a dealer. Apart from that under Clause 3 of the Bihar Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 , the petitioner is not required to have any licence for possession of Musturd Oil upto 5 quintals. The recovery of the Mustard Oil from the possession of the petitioner was admittedly 11 tins, which roughly comes to 1 quintal and 76 Kgs. at the rate of 15 kgs. per tin. Therefore, the petitioners case is covered and exempted under clause 3 of the aforesaid Order. 8. Coming to the question of display of prices and stocks position, with respect to the possession of the Mustard Oil, it was submitted that it is bad because of want of sanction under Sec.6 of the Order. Admittedly in this case, no sanction required under the law has been taken. Learned Counsel, Mr. Jerath, appearing for the State pointed out that towards the last portion of the F. I. R. , it is clearly mentioned that under the direction of the Sub-divisional Officer, the matter was investigated. But this appears to be a criptic approach to the problem, because it docs not indicate that any due consideration or judicial mind was applied by the Sub-divisional Officer, who is authorised to make such a sanction. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the ruling reported in 1987 PLJR, 670 at page 671. But this appears to be a criptic approach to the problem, because it docs not indicate that any due consideration or judicial mind was applied by the Sub-divisional Officer, who is authorised to make such a sanction. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the ruling reported in 1987 PLJR, 670 at page 671. In similar circumstances, it was observed by a Bench of this Court that a vague statement made in the complaint that sanction has been obtained as provided under the proviso to clause 6 of the Display Order is not sufficient. The sanction order ought to accompany the complant petition as it becomes the very basis of taking cognizance. That being so, the vague statement makes the allegation vague and on such allegation it will not be advisable to continue the prosecution and it will result in the abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, in that case, the order of taking cognizance was set aside. Similar is the position available here. In this case also no separate sanction order was attached and the Sub-divisional Officer does not seem to have applied his judicial mind before launching the prosecution, which is the requirement of the law. 9. In the circumstance, the allegation so far the display of prices and stocks position is concerned also cannot be sustained in view ot non-compliance of the mandatory provision of the law. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and the order launching criminal prosecution and subsequent order of taking cognizance against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Application allowed.