Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order, dated 14-4-1987 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act) Jamshedpur in Blatupur P. S. Case No. 275/86 under Section 1 of the Essential Commodities Act by which he has taken cognizance of the offence in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that one Bindeshwari Singh, the Inspector of Police (Food), Jamshedpur, got a confidential information on 4-7-1986 that about 300 tins of Postman brand and 450 tins of Tajbrand groundnut oil were seized which was sold by a firm M/s Faruque Anwar Company to one M/s Bhagwati Traders of Chatsila which firm had no licence for dealing in edible oil. After the seizure of the consignment a case was lodged against these petitioners who are the partners of M/s Faruque Anwar Company making allegation that they had sold the aforesaid edible oil to a firm at Chatshila which had no licence. 3. Mr. G. C. Bharuka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that under no law a firm i.e. M/s Faruque Anwar Company had any obligation to find out as to what law as prevailing in the State of Bihar and whether M/s Bhagwati Traders of Chatshila had a valid licence or had no licence. Whatever requirement or obligations were cast upon the said Company, had been full-filled and necessary papers had been supplied to the truck which was seized, the list of which is also given in the FIR. 4. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner appears to be sound and the same has to be accepted. Nothig has been pointed out on behalf of the State that was there any obligation, duty or responsibility cast upon the soiling firm to verify as to whether the purchasing firm at Chatshila or Jamshedpur had necessary licence, qualification or necessary requirement as provided under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 or any Rule or any order issued under the provision of the E. C. Act. 5. 5. The nankkar seller at anchar or any other place in India is only required to prima facie find out and satisfy as to what are the requireme its at that particular place (sic) or the State or as to whether they have been complied with or uot or whether that commodity is subject to Central Excise or Sales Tax of that place or not. No duty or any obligation was cast upon any partner or on any firm of adifferent State to know about the law prevalent in other State or in the State of Bihar. This type of obligation, in fact, appears to be quite unreasonable and totally incapable of execution or to be complied with. 6. In this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in AIR 1970 SC 1955 Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and others V/s. Union of India and others in which it was held that under Section 100 of the Coal Control Act a duty was cast upon the seller to know about the identity of the purchaser. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment and while dealing with this matter it was held that the statutory obligation imposed by this section is uncertain and incapable of proper compliance. It was further held that this section imposes an impossible burden upon the dealers and constitutes an unreasonable restriction. 7. Similar is the position here. On that analogy also it must beheld that no such obligation or duty is cast upon the seller to know about the actual Act or situation prevailing in any other State so far the purchaser is concerned or whether the purchaser is a bona fide purchaser or not or he had licence or not. If such person who had purchased the commodity, has conravenel any of the provisions of that State, he himself would be liable or the firm will be liable but indeed the seller who had sold the commodity, cannot be held responsible. 8. In this case also the facts are quite similar. No duty or obligation is cast upon the seller to know about the licence obtained by a purchaser of any other Stato. Such restriction must be held to bo a restriction which is quite impossible for proper compliance and this affect the fundamental right of freedom to trade. 9. 8. In this case also the facts are quite similar. No duty or obligation is cast upon the seller to know about the licence obtained by a purchaser of any other Stato. Such restriction must be held to bo a restriction which is quite impossible for proper compliance and this affect the fundamental right of freedom to trade. 9. In this case no Act, order or any rule has been shown that there was any duty cast upon the seller to satisfy himself as to whether there was any machinery provided for the same to find out as to whether the seller had the necessary pre-requisites for purchasing the articles. In the absence of any such obligation, these two petitioners who are, admittedly, the partners of M/s Farooque Anwar Company, Raipur cannot be held to be responsible and, in fact, they have not contravened any of the provisions of the Act as such, they are not responsible, In the capacity of sellers. 10. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance and also the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners only are hereby quashed.