Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. By this application the petitioner have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Giridih (Town) P. S. Case No. 335/84, dated 11-12-1984 including the order dated 16-3-1985, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the E. C. Act") and also an order dated 6-2-1986 by which the learned Magistrate has refused to discharge petitioners, 2. The short facts which led to the filing of this application are that on 10-12-1984 the Marketing Officer made a report to the Officer-in-charge, Giridih (Town) Police Station alleging, inter alia, that while he was on patrolling duty, he found 14 Metric tonnes of steam coal loaded on Truck No. BHR-6110, The Marketing Officer intercepted the truck and on demand no papers were found and the driver of the truck stated that the coal was being taken to Dwar Pahari and it was loaded from the coal depot petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Since no paper in relation to the coal were produced, the same was seized alongwith the truck and a recommendation was made to institute a case under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and Sec. 414 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code) against the driver as well as the Coal depot owners. On receipt of the said report Giridih (town) P- S. Case No. 335/84 dated 11-12-1984 under Section 7 E. C. Act and Sec. 414 of the Penal Code was registered and Police took up investigation. 3. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance under Section 7 of the E. C. Act was taken against the aforesaid petitioners. 4. Petitioner No. 1 is the driver of the said truck, which is engaged by various persons to carry their articles to different placed. 5. According to the case of petitioner No. 1 the truck in question was engaged by one Ganesh Mandal of Dwar Pahari, who has purchased the aforesaid coal from petitioner No. 3, the licenced coal dealer, for use in his brick kiln for manufacturing bricks. While the said coal was being carried to its destination one of the rear tyres of the said truck burst and as such the truck was standing on the road, when -it was intercepted by the informant. 6. While the said coal was being carried to its destination one of the rear tyres of the said truck burst and as such the truck was standing on the road, when -it was intercepted by the informant. 6. According to the case of petitioner No. 3 he was dealing in coal and he purchased and brought coal from M/s. Central Coal Fields Collieries and the coal found on the said truck was sold by him on 10.12.1984 to the said Ganesh Mandal for which cash memo was also given to him. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the institution of the case is misconceived and abuse of the process of the court as there has been no violation of any Control Order on the alleged date of occurrence. Even the first information report dots not disclose any offence which is punishable either under Sec. 414 of the Penal Code or Section 7 of the E, C. Act. It was further contended that on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 11-12-1984 no Coal Control Order was in force in the State of Bihar and there was no restriction on the movement of coal or on the transportation of coal from one place to another place in the State of Bihar. 8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order. 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order), By virtue of Clause 32 of the said Unification Order, some of the Licensing Orders mentioned in Schedule III including the Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956, stood repealed from the date of commencement of the Unification Order itself i.e. w.e.f. 19-4-1984 and no order restricting either the movement of the Coal or the storage of Coal was in force on that date i.e. 10-12-1984 in the State of Bihar, 9. It appears that vide Notification G.S.R. 49 dated 17th October, 1985, the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government fixed the stock limits of the trade articles under Clause 3 of the Unification Order, 1984, which came into force vide G. S. R, No. 9 dated 9th April, 1984. It appears that vide Notification G.S.R. 49 dated 17th October, 1985, the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government fixed the stock limits of the trade articles under Clause 3 of the Unification Order, 1984, which came into force vide G. S. R, No. 9 dated 9th April, 1984. Clause 13 of this Notification reads as follows : The Coal dealer means a person who at any time holds stock of coal for purchase, sale or storage for the purpose other than personal consumption in a quantity exceeding 10 (ten) quintals. As I have already indicated above this Notification fixing the storage limit of trade articles came into force on 17-10-1985, It was vehemently argued that on the date of alleged occurrence the Government had not issued any notification regarding storage of coal which was punishable under the E. C. Act for violation. Therefore, the entire prosecution is bad in law and fit to be quashed. 10 It is an admitted position that the Notification under Clause 18 (2) of the Unification Order came into existence only on 17th October, 1915, Therefore, even punishable nor it was an offence on the date on which the truck was seized. 11. In the instant case cognizance has been taken under Section 7 of the E. C. Act, which clearly lays down that if a person contravenes any order made under Sec.3 he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which was extended to seven years and was also be liable to fine. Therefore, in my view, a man can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 7 of the E. C. Act only if he contravenes any order made under Sec.3 of the B.C. Act, The State Counsel could not be able to satisfy the court that on the date of occurrence there were any order or Notification, which was violated by these petitioners It is necessary for prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, that a clear case be made out against the petitioners, otherwise the Court will not allow any prosecution to continue. 12. It is an admitted position that for making out any case for storage exceeding certain limits, notification is required under Clause 18 (2) of the Unification Order, 1984. 12. It is an admitted position that for making out any case for storage exceeding certain limits, notification is required under Clause 18 (2) of the Unification Order, 1984. As there was no notification on the date of occurrence in my view, the entire proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court and fit to be quashed. 13. In the result the application is allowed and the entire proscution including the order of taking cognizance as well as order dated 5-2-1916 refusing to discharge the petitioners are hereby quashed. 14. In the result the application is allowed.