Judgment SURENDRA NARAIN JHA, J. 1. this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of the first information report which gave rise to Bermo Police Station Case No, 0145 of 1984, dated 14th November, 1984 registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the E. C. Act" for the sake of brevity and easy reference) and also for quashing of the charge-sheet submitted by the police in the aforesaid case pending in the Court of Special Judge, Giridih. 2. The short facts which gave rise to the filing of this application are that on 14th November, 1984 at 3.00 A.M. while the informant was on patrolling duty, he stopped a truck bearing registration No. 7285 near the Football ground at Phusro Bazar. On checking of the said truck the informant found that the truck was loaded with few bags of pulse, 38 tins of Gur and 4 tins of mustard oil and on demand the occupants failed to produce any document with respect to the foodgrains in question. 3. On basis of the said allegation a first information report was lodged and as stated earlier on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the E. C. Act. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the public carrier and his business is to carry on articles on hire basis and he has nothing to do with the articles in question. Therefore, the prosecution and investigation against the petitioner is mala fide and without any authority of law and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. According to Mm he has not violated any provision of the E. C. Act or any Order made thereunder. According to him the seized articles belong to one Ram Chandra Prasad, proprietor of M/s. Ram Traders and on 24th November, 1984, the learned Special Judge, Giridih, after perusal of the document with respect to seized articles and licences ordered for the release of the articles in favour of the said Ram Chandra Prasad. 5. It was further contended that the allegation made in the First information report does not constitute any offence at all under Section 7 of the E. C. Act against the petitioner. 5. It was further contended that the allegation made in the First information report does not constitute any offence at all under Section 7 of the E. C. Act against the petitioner. As such the prosecution and investigation is mere an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also contended that after repeal of Bihar Foodgrain Dealers licencing Order, 1967 on 19th April, 1984 under Schedule III of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, the petitioner cannot be convicted for violation of any provision of the repealed order Moreover, he was not a dealer. He was merely a carrier and his profession was to carry on business on hire basis, which does not amount to any violation of any order. 6. While admitting this application the investigation of the case was not stayed, but it has been brought on the record through supplementary affidavit that charge-sheet has been submitted after investigation and since no case has been made out against the petitioner, the same is also fit to be quashed. 7. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that on 14th November, 1984, on which the occurrence is said to have been taken place, there was no Notification in existence at all and thus there could not be any prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. According to the learned Counsel, it is an admitted position that no Notification, as envisaged under Clause 2 (P) and 2 (U) and under Clause 18 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, was in existance on the date of seizure and there was no restriction on the movement of the commodities in question. Therefore, the entire prosecution is misconceived and fit to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not be able to show that there was any order restricting the movement of the commodities in question, but he submitted that since charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court should not quash the proceeding and it should be left open for the trial Court to consider all these points. 9. It is well-settled that if no prima facie case has been made out against the accused the proceeding may be quashed at the initial stage to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. 9. It is well-settled that if no prima facie case has been made out against the accused the proceeding may be quashed at the initial stage to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Prioceedings can be quashed if on the face of the complaint no offence is constituted. It appears from the first information report that pulse, gut and mustard oil were found on the truck, which was released in favour of the said Ram Chandra Prasad and there was no notification restricting the movement of the said goods on the alleged date of occurrence. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of M/s. Rajesh Trading Co. v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 19898 PLJR 463, where a similar point was raised that on the date of alleged occurrence there was no notification, therefore, the seizure as well as the confiscation proceeding was entirely misconcieved and bad in law, and their Lordships allowed the said application and quashed the impugned order. Against that order the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union moved the Honble Supreme Court in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1370/87 and and said S.L.P. was dismissed in limine. 10. In that view of the matter it is an admitted position that a notification under Clause 2 (P) and (U) of the Unification Order or for that matter under Clause 18 thereof was not in existence on the date of occurrence either fixing storage limit for the retail or wholesale dealer or making any restriction for the movement of such articles and in absence of such a notification, it is very difficult to hold as to whether any offence has been committed by the petitioner or not. Clause 18 of the Unification Order priovides for restriction on 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 the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 11. Clause 18 of the Unification Order priovides for restriction on 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 the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 11. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the opinion that since no case has been made out against the petitioner, the continuation 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. 12. In the result this application is allowed and the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, there will be no order as to cost.