JUDGMENT N. Pandey, J.- This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing in order dated 14.3.1985, passed in Special Case No. 44 of 1984, whereunder the Special Judge, Purnea, has taken cognizance under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is proprietorship firm whereas petitioner no. 2 is the proprietor of the said firm. The firm has got wholesale Foodgrains Licence bearing no. 570 of 1978, issued under the provisions of Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licencing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order'). 3. On 25.5.1984 the Assistant Marketing Officer, Araria, filed a petition of complaint before the Special Judge, Purnea, alleging, therein, that the firm in question had sold 131 bags of wheat to M/s Chhaganlal Om Prakash of Silliguri. In support of the credit sale, the petition firm had issued a credit memo no. 86 dated 23.5.1984, with regard to the aforesaid 131 bags of wheat to the purchaser. From the aforesaid memo it appeared that the petitioner had charged sales tax under the provisions or the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, at the rate of 4 per cent. It further shows that no market fee was being charged, as the market fee was already paid on the purchase. 4. As usual, the truck left Araria 'in the morning so that it could deliver the goods and return to Araria by the same evening. The goods were loaded in the truck in the early hours of 23.4.1984 and, thereafter, the truck proceeded towards its destination At about 5.30 a.m. the said truck was intercepted by the officials of the Supply Department. The credit memo the was handed over in order to show that the wheat was being taken from the petitioner's firm under the credit memo to the destination, the wheat was seized on the allegation that some necessary papers were wanting as they were not produced before the raiding party. The Assistant Marketing Officer, thereafter, went to the business premises of the petitioner firm and inspected the books of account. The brother of petitioner no. 2 gave statement in writing that the petitioner firm had sold the aforesaid consignment of wheat on credit and necessary entry were made in the Stock Register. The Stock Register and other papers were also seized. 5. The brother of petitioner no. 2 gave statement in writing that the petitioner firm had sold the aforesaid consignment of wheat on credit and necessary entry were made in the Stock Register. The Stock Register and other papers were also seized. 5. On 25.5.1984 the Assistant Marketing Officer, while filing the complaint petition before the special Judge, alleged that in course of inspection the following irregularities were found : (i) Nine quintals and 8 quintals of Wheat were sold to two different persons under two credit memo nos. 84 and 85 dated 22.5.1984 but their signatures were not taken nor their licence numbers were written. (ii) No wholesale dealer is permitted to sale more than one bag of wheat to a non-licencee and in that view of the matter, the aforesaid two sales under credit memo nos. 84 and 85 were in violation of the licence. (iii) As required under the sales tax law no form in Form X was issued, de-companying the consignment. (iv) There was no document showing that the market fee was paid. (v) The business transaction was carried on prior to the business hours fixed under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953. In view of the aforesaid allegation, it was alleged that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967, and accordingly the prayer was made that the cognizance be taken against the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provision of Clause 32 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licencee Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Unification Order') as introduced with effect from 19th April, 1984, the "Licensing Order" stands repealed. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of Clause 32 (1) of the "Unification Order". "From the date of commencement of this order the Licensing orders, mentioned in Schedule III shall stand repealed [xxx] and the provisions of this order shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the licences repealed by this sub-clause". In Schedule III, which contains the list of orders repealed, the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 has been mentioned. In view of the aforesaid provision it has been submitted that the alleged occurrence, in the present case, took place on 23.5.1984 and on that day the Bihar Foodgrains Licensing Order was not in operation. In Schedule III, which contains the list of orders repealed, the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 has been mentioned. In view of the aforesaid provision it has been submitted that the alleged occurrence, in the present case, took place on 23.5.1984 and on that day the Bihar Foodgrains Licensing Order was not in operation. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held liable for any contravention, whatsoever, done under the aforesaid order. 7. It has been further pointed out that in the Unification Order, as it was on 19.4.1984, no restriction on the quantity of foodgrains to be sold by a wholesale dealers or retail dealers to any person was fixed Therefore, on 23.5.1984 when the petitioner's firm sold the wheat under the credit memo nos. 84 and 85, as alleged, there was no restriction. For the first tine a notification in exercise of power conferred under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, was issued by the Government of Bihar, fixing the storage limit and other essential conditions on 17th October, 1985 vide Notification No. G.S.R. 49. 8. On the basis of the aforementioned facts learned counsel has submitted that on the date of inspection neither the restriction imposed under the "Unification Order" was applicable nor the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order was in operation, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction and misconceived in law. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance over a decision of 'Govind Choudbary @ Prasad Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar', reported in 1989 E.F.R., 324. The facts of the present case are identical to that case. In that case it was held that prior to 17th of October, 1985, on the date the notification was issued by the State Government, fixing storage limit, and after the repeal of the Licensing Order and offence relating to storage of Foodgrains was not punishable nor it was an offence on the day on which the Godown was searched and seized. 9. Since the petition succeeds on this ground alone it is not necessary to decide other questions. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel myself persuaded to hold that the violation of Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, as it stands on 23.5.1984, no prosecution can be lodged for violation of the said order. 10. 9. Since the petition succeeds on this ground alone it is not necessary to decide other questions. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel myself persuaded to hold that the violation of Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, as it stands on 23.5.1984, no prosecution can be lodged for violation of the said order. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 14.3.1984, taking cognizance against the petitioners, is quashed.