Judgment L. P. N. Shahdeo, J. 1. This is an application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution as well as order taking cognizance dated 6-8-1986 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act) Ranchi. in Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P. S. Case No.429/85. 2. It appears that the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 who are partners of the firm known as M/s. Jagannath Trading Company and petitioner No.3 is owner of M/s. Ganesh Khadyan Bhandar. 3. It appears that shop No.227 of petitioners 1 and 2 was inspected by the D. S. P. (Food) on 27-6-1985 about 11 a. m. and it was delected that at that time the shop was closed which was opened by Sushil Kumar Gupta (petitioner no.2) and it was found that 172 bags af rice weighing about 129.30 quintals were found in stock. A display board was also there but without any entry and the name of dealer written in that board was Ganesh Khadyan Bhandar. The informant in the circumstances came to the conclusion that the storage was for illegal trade and as such he seized the articles and filed a case under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause 3 of the Unification order. 4. Sri P. D. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in this case the Unification Order, 1984 came into force w. e. f.19-4-1984 and Clause 3 of the Licensing Order only remained valid upto 15-4-1985 and thereafter in the intervening period no notification extending that period was published by the Bihar-Government and ultimately a notification was published prescribed the storage limit only on 17-10-1985. Therefore, it was submitted in this intervening period when the offence was detected there was no unification Order came into force and as such he has not committed any offence. 5. It is admitted position in this case that Unification Order came into force on 19-4-1984 and according to the notification the licensing provisions provided in the earlier order remained valid only upto 15-4-1985 by the government notification issued in this connection which is undisputed. Admittedly the incident had taken place on 27-6-1985 and at that time there was no licensing provisions enforced which come into force on 17-10-1985. In the circumstances he has not committed any offence for violation of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order which appears to be correct. Admittedly the incident had taken place on 27-6-1985 and at that time there was no licensing provisions enforced which come into force on 17-10-1985. In the circumstances he has not committed any offence for violation of Clause 3 of the Licensing Order which appears to be correct. 6. It also appears according to the order taking cognizance that he has been also alleged to have violated the Display Order but for that it was rightly pointed out that no necessary sanction was obtained as required under the proviso to Clause 6 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stock) Order, 1977. Therefore the prosecution of the petitioners if any, under that Display order is wholly illegal. 7. The argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision given by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.387/86 (R) on 23-4-1987. In that case also the prosecution started against the petitioner of that case was quashed. Similar points were raised in that case which was upheld by this Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also in order to strengthening the aforesaid judgment have relied upon a ruling reported in 1988 PLJR 489 in which case also it was said that Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 Clauses 2 (p), 2 (u) and 3 were held not to apply as no notification was issued prescribing the storage limit earlier to that. This ruling was terted by the Hon ble supreme Court and also approved as reported in 1986 PLJR 44 (SC ). 9. In the facts and circumstances discussed on the basis of the aforesaid ruling there was no scope for prosecution of the petitioners nor such type of criminal prosecution can stand even on purely reading the First Information Report itself. 10. In the result, this Criminal Misc. case is allowed. The criminal prosecution and the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners, are, hereby quashed. Application allowed.