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 pending against the petitioners and the order taking cognizance dated 18-11-1981, passed by Sri B. Topno, Acting Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, who had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has transferred the case for disposal which was then pending in the Court of the S.D.J.W., Giridih, in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that the business premises of the petitioners were searched on 11-7-1981 on the allegation of discrepancy in the stock register and the same was sealed. Petitioner No. 2 was arrested. Thereafter it is claimed that 150 bags of rice in a truck bearing No. P. P. P. 265 had arrived and since the godown was sealed, these 150 bags of rice, purely as a temporary measure, were kept in the house of one Kishori Mohan of Ward No. IV, holding No. 303 of Giridih town, as the same could not be kept open in the rainy season. It is claimed that, thereafter, the authorities again instituted the present case against the petitioner for the simple reason that there had been no display of stock position and price in that godown. Charge-sheet was submitted and ultimately cognizance was taken, which is being challenged in this application. 3. Mr. Ramautar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order taking cognizance is bad as no display is required to be made in the godown and secondly, the whole criminal prosecution as also the order of taking cognizance is bad as necessary sanction as required under proviso to Clause (6) of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stock) Order, 1977, has not been obtained and, therefore, the whole criminal prosecution is bad and void. 4. It is admitted position that a case in respect of the inspection that had taken place on 11-7-1981 was instituted against the petitioners and their business premises were sealed, being Giridih (T) P. S. case No. 223/81. 4. It is admitted position that a case in respect of the inspection that had taken place on 11-7-1981 was instituted against the petitioners and their business premises were sealed, being Giridih (T) P. S. case No. 223/81. It also appears to be admitted position that subsequently on the following day, on 12-7-1981, the aforesaid truck containing 150 bags of rice had arrived and those bags of rice were required to be kept in a proper and safe place because of the rainy season The contention that as a temporary measure, those 150 bags of rice were kept in the house of one Kishori Mohan, of ward No. IV, holding No. 303 of Giridila town, does not appear to be in any was unreasonable and it also does not appear to be a regular godown. The rice was kept purely as a temporary measure as no business man is likely to keep the same in open place during rainy season. It also appears that the petitioners had informed the authorities about this temporary measure and Annexure-6 shows that their request was rejected by the District Supply Officer, This shows their bona fide approach, although not approved by the authorities concerned. 5. In a ruling reported in 1980 B.B.C.J. 155, in Paragraph 10, it has been specifically held that no display of stock position or price list is required in a godown if it is at a distance from the business premises. Therefore, display of stock position and price list in a temporary godown is not required under the law and it does not amount to contravention of any provisions of the aforesaid Display Order. 6. It is admitted position that it is the fundamental requirement of the law that sanction for prosecuting a person under the Display Order is essential and it must be obtained before a person is put for trial. In this case it is admitted position that no sanction was obtained from the authorities mentioned therein. Therefore according to proviso Clause (6) of the Display Order, no cognizance can be taken for any offence, unless sanction is obtained in this regard. This shows that the mandatory provisions requiring obtaining of sanction has not been complied with in this case. Therefore, the entire criminal prosecution and the order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law and requires interference by this Court. This shows that the mandatory provisions requiring obtaining of sanction has not been complied with in this case. Therefore, the entire criminal prosecution and the order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law and requires interference by this Court. Similar view was taken in the Bench decisions reported in 1985-PLJR-971 and 1987-PLJR-678, In both the cases, the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal prosecution were quashed on that ground alone. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal prosecution, being Giridih (T) P. S. case No. 0224. dated 12-7-1981, are hereby quashed.